si.'?--  P>1 


HH m 


1         I 


UNIVERSITY 
OF  FLORIDA 
LIBRARY 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2010  with  funding  from 

Lyrasis  Members  and  Sloan  Foundation 


http://www.archive.org/details/diplomatichistor15unit 


63d  CONGRESS     =     :     2d  SESSION 

DECEMBER  1,  1913-OCTOBER  24,  1914 


SENATE  DOCUMENTS 


VOL.  15 


WASHINGTON  :  :  GOVERNMENT  PRINTING  OFFICE  :  :  1914 


63d  Congress  ) 
2d  Session      f 


SENATE 


Document 
No.  474 


DIPLOMATIC  HISTORY  OF 
THE  PANAMA  CANAL 


CORRESPONDENCE 

RELATING  TO 
THE 

NEGOTIATION    AND   APPLICATION   OF    CERTAIN 
TREATIES  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  THE  CONSTRUC- 
TION OF  AN  INTEROCEANIC  CANAL.  AND 
ACCOMPANYING  PAPERS 


r^y^h 


WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT  PRINTING  OFFICE 

1914 


34/.  273 


REPORTED  BY  MR.  HITCHCOCK. 

In  the  Senate  of  the  United  States, 

April  29,  19Uh 

Resolved,  That  there  be  printed  as  a  Senate  document  the  message  from  the 
President  of  the  United  States,  dated  April  twenty-fourth,  nineteen  hundred  and 
fourteen,  transmitting  a  report  of  the  Secretary  of  State  in  relation  to  the 
negotiation  and  application  of  certain  treaties  on  the  subject  of  an  interoceanic 
canal ;  the  message  of  the  President  of  the  United  States,  dated  November 
sixteenth,  nineteen  hundred  and  three,  with  accompanying  papers,  included  in 
House  Document  Numbered  Eight,  parts  one  and  two,  Fifty-eighth  Congress, 
first  session ;  the  message  of  the  President  of  the  United  States,  dated  December 
eighteenth,  nineteen  hundred  and  three,  with  accompanying  papers,  included 
in  Senate  Document  Numbered  Fifty-one,  Fifty-eighth  Congress,  second  session ; 
and  certain  letters  from  Jose  Vicente  Concha,  the  Colombian  minister,  and  other 
papers,  included  in  House  Document  Numbered  Six  hundred  and  eleven,  Fifty- 
seventh  Congress,  first  session;  together  with  correspondence  relating  to  said 
protocol,  and  that  one  thousand  additional  copies  be  printed  for  the  use  of  the 
Senate. 

Attest : 

James  M.  Bakeb,  Secretary. 


CONTENTS 


PART  I. 

Page. 

Bryan,  "William  J.,  Secretary  of  State,  letter  to  the  President,  April  23, 1914. . .  ix 

Choate,  Joseph  H.,  American  ambassador  to  Great  Britain: 

Telegram  to  Mr.  Hay,  January  11,  1901 9 

Letter  to  Mr.  Hay,  January  12,  1901 9 

Letter  to  Lord  Lansdowne,  January  4,  1901 9 

Telegram  to  Mr.  Hay,  February  19,  1901 11 

Extracts  from  private  letter  to  Mr.  Hay,  June  24,  1901 22 

Letter  to  Mr.  Hay,  August  16,  1901 31 

Letter  to  Mr.  Hay,  August  20,  1901 34 

Letter  to  Mr.  Hay,  September  3,  1901 38 

Telegram  to  Mr.  Hay,  September  20,  1901 39 

Letter  to  Mr.  Hay,  September  21 ,  1901 40 

Letter  to  Mr.  Hay,  September  25,  1901 42 

Telegram  to  Mr.  Hay,  September  27,  1901 44 

Letter  to  Mr.  Hay,  September  27,  1901 44 

Telegram  to  Mr.  Hay,  October  2,  1901 45 

Letter  to  Mr.  Hay,  October  2,  1901 46 

Letter  to  Mr.  Hay,  October  9,  1901 48 

Telegram  to  Mr.  Hay,  October  9,  1901 49 

Hay,  John,  Secretary  of  State: 

Letter  to  Mr.  White,  December  7,  1898 1 

Letter  to  Mr.  Choate,  December  22,  1900 " 6 

Letter  to  Lord  Pauncefote,  December  22,  1900 7 

Telegram  to  Mr.  C  hoate,  December  29,  1900 8 

Letter  to  Mr.  Choate,  January  25,  1901 10 

Telegram  to  Mr.  Choate,  February  16,  1901 10 

Telegram  to  Mr.  Choate,  March  13,  1901 18 

Telegram  to  Mr.  (hoate,  March  15,  1901 19 

Letter  to  Lord  Pauncefote,  March  25,  1901 19 

Extract  from  private  letter  to  Mr.  Choate,  April  27,  1901 21 

Telegram  to  Mr.  Choate,  August  22,  1901 35 

Extracts  from  private  letter  to  Mr.  Choate,  September  2,  1901 36 

Extracts  from  private  letter  to  Lord  Pauncefote,  September  2,  1901 37 

Telegram  to  Mr.  Choate,  September  21,  1901 42 

Telegram  to  Mr.  Choate,  September  29,  1901 45 

Telegram  to  Mr.  Choate,  October  2,  1901 45 

Telegram  t< i  Mr.  (  hoate,  October  3,  1901 48 

Letter  to  Lord  Pauncefote,  November  8,  1901 52 

Letter,  explanatory  of  provisions  of  second  treaty,  addressed  to  Hon.  S.  M. 
Cullom,  chairman  Senate  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations,  December 

12,  1901 53 

Letter  to  Lord  Pauncefote,  Dec<  mber  16,  1901 68 

Letter  to  Lord  Pauncefote,  February  20,  1902 68 

Hay- Pauncefote  treaty  (November  18,  1901): 

Original  draft  submitted  to  Lord  Lansdowne 20 

Amendments  to  Mr.  Hay's  original  draft  proposed  by  Lord  Lansdowne 29 

History  of  amendments  proposed  and  considered  which  resulted  in  sec- 
ond treaty 61 

Lansdowne,  the  Marquis  of: 

Letter  to  Lord  Pauncefote,  February  22,  1901 11 

Letter  of  Mr.  Lowther,  August  3,  1901 25 

Memorandum  transmitted  to  Mr.  Lowther,  August  3,  1901 2.5 

Amendments  to  Mr.  Hay's  draft  of  second  treaty  proposed  bv 29 

Letter  to  Mr.  Lowther,  September  12,  1901 " 38 

Letter  to  Lord  Pauncefote,  October  23.  1901 50 


7£32-2- 


m 


IV  CONTENTS. 

Pago. 

Papers  transmitted  in  response  to  Senate  resolution  339,  April  23,  1914,  list  of..  xi 

Pauncefote,  Lord,  British  ambassador  to  the  United  States: 

Letter  to  Mi.  Hay,  December  26,  1900 8 

Letter  of  Lord  Lansdowne,  April  25,  1901 19 

Letter  to  Lord  Lansdowne,  November  18,  1901 53 

Letter  to  Lord  Lansdowne,  November  19,  1901 52 

Telegram  to  Lord  Lansdowne,  December  16,  1901 53 

Letter  to  Mr.  Hay,  February  18,  1902 68 

Spectator,  London,  editorial  in,  December  10,  1898 4 

White,  Henry,  charge  d'affaires,  American  Embassy,  London: 

Telegram  to  Mr.  Hay,  December  21,  1898 2 

Telegram  to  Mr.  Hay,  December  22,  1898 2 

Letter  to  Mr.  Hay,  December  22,  1898 3 

Telegram  to  Mr.  Hay,  October  23,  1901 50 

Extracts  from  personal  letter  to  Mr.  Hay,  October  26,  1901 51 

Wilson,  Woodrow,  President  of  the  United  States,  transmitting  correspondence, 

April  24.  1914 ix 

PART  II. 

Bacon,  Robert,  Secretary  of  State,  letter  to  Mr.  Bryce,  February  20, 1909 77 

Bryce,  James,  British  ambassador  to  the  United  States: 

Letter  to  Mr.  Root,  January  8,  1909 70 

Memorandum  to  Mr.  Root, "February  3,  1909 76 

Letter  to  Mr.  Bacon,  February  24,  1909 81 

Reid,  Whitelaw,  American  ambassador  to  Great  Britain: 

Telegram  to  Mr.  Root,  January  11,  1909 71 

Telegram  to  Mr.  Root,  January  15,  1909 71 

Letter  to  Mr.  Root,  January  25,  1909 75 

Memorandum  to  Sir  Edward  Grey,  January  20,  1909 75 

Root,  Elihu,  Secretary  of  State: 

Letter  to  Mr.  Bryce,  January  8,  1909 69 

Letter  to  Mr.  Reid,  January  9,  1909 70 

Letter  to  the  British  ambassador,  January  16,  1909 72 

Telegram  to  Mr.  Reid,  January  16,  1909 74 

PART  III. 

Bryce,  James,  British  ambassador,  Washington,  letter  to  Mr.  Knox,  February 

27,  1913 101 

Grey,  Sir  Edward,  secretary  of  state  for  foreign  affairs,  Great  Britain,  letter  to 

Mr.  Bryce,  November  14,  1912 85 

Innes,  A"  Mitchell,  British  charge  d'affaires,  Washington: 

Letter  to  Mr.  Knox,  July  8,  1912 82 

Letter  to  Mr.  Knox,  August  27,  1912 83 

Knox,  P.  C,  Secretary  of  State,  letter  to  Charge  d'Affaires  Laughlin,  London, 

January  17,  1913 93 

Panama  Canal  diies,  interrogations  in  the  House  of  Commons  (October  11, 1912) 

concerning 84 

Phillips,  William,  American  embassy,  London,  letter  to  Mr.  Knox,  October 

11 ,  1912 84 

Taft,  William  H.,  President  of  the  United  States,  proclamation  (Panama  Canal 

toll  rates),  November  13,  1912 100 

Wilson,  Huntington,  Acting  Secretary  of  State,  letter  to  Mr.  Innes,  August  30, 

1912 83 

PART   IV-a. 

Adee,  A.  A..  Acting  Secretary  of  State: 

Telegram  to  Mr.  Northcott,  October  4.  1909 241 

Telegram  to  Mr.  Northcott,  October  23,  1909 244 

Arosemena,  C.  O.  Panama  minister,  telegram  to  Mr.  Root,  January  31,  1909.. .  190 

Bacon,  Robert,  Acting  Secretary  of  Stale: 

Letter  to  Mr.  Cortes,  April  9.  1908 174 

Telegram  to  Mr.  Dawson,  February  9,  1909 190 

Telegram  to  Mr.  Dawson,  February  26,  1909 195 


CONTENTS.  V 

Barrett,  John,  minister  to  Colombia:  I'age. 

Letter  to  Mr.  Root,  April  7,  1906 112 

Letter  to  Mr.  Root,  May  23,  1906 112 

Telegram  to  Mr.  Root,  June  12,  1906 120 

Letter  to  Mr.  Root.  June  13,  1906 120 

Letter  to  Mr.  Root,  June  13,  1906 121 

Letter  to  Mr.  Root,  June  13,  1906 122 

Telegram  to  Mr.  Root,  July  14,  1906 129 

Bryan,  William  Jennings,  Secretary  of  State,  letter  to  President,  May  6,  1914,.  105 

Calderon,  Carlos,  minister  for  foreign  affairs.  Colombia: 

Letter  to  Mr.  Northcott,  October  2,  1909 242 

Letter  to  Mr.  Northcott,  December  20,  1909 248 

Cobo,  Vasquez,  minister  for  foreign  affairs,  Colombia,  confidential  memorandum 

submitted  to  Mr.  Root  and  Mr.  Barrett,  September  20, 1906 129 

Colombia  and  Panama,  protocol  transmitted  by  President  Taft,  August  17. 1907 .  152 

Cortes-Arango  protocol,  August  17,  1907 152 

Cortes,  Enrico.  Colombian  minister: 

Confidential  memorandum  to  Mr.  Root,  November  S,  1906 130 

Memorandum  submitted  to  Mr.  Root,  Januarv  3,  1907 134 

Letter  to  Mr.  Buchanan,  March  4,  1907 ' 135 

Memorandum  relating  to  proposed  treaty  with  Colombia,  March  4,  1907. .  137 
Statement  covering  news  concerning  Colombian  claims  against  Panama: 

Costa  Rican  boundary  dispute,  etc..  March  4,  1907 138 

Letter  to  Mr.  Buchanan,  March  7.  1907 147 

Letter  to  Mr.  Root,  April  25,  1907 151 

Telegram  to  Colombian  Government,  Mav  10,  1907 152 

Letter  to  Mr.  Root,  August  18,  1907 ' 356 

Letter  to  Mr.  Root,  December  5,  1907 157 

Letter  to  Mr.  Root,  December  20,  1907 160 

Letter  to  Mr.  Root.  December  28,  1907 164 

Memorandum  to  Mr.  Root,  comparing  Columbian  protocol  with  protocol  of 

August  17.  1907 164 

Letter  to  Mr.  Root,  Januarv  26,  1908 168 

Letter  to  Mr.  Root,  February  19,  1908 170 

Letter  to  Mr.  Root,  March  12,  1908 172 

Letter  to  Mr.  Root,  March  31,  1908 173 

Letter  to  Mr.  Root,  December  31,  1908 180 

Letter  to  Mr.  Root,  January  10,  1909 186 

Letter  to  Mr.  Knox,  March  16,  1909 213 

Letter  to  Mr.  Knox,  March  22,  1909 217 

Letter  to  Mr.  Knox,  March  24,  1909 219 

Cromwell,  William  Nelson,  counsel  New  Panama  Canal  Co.,  letter  to  the  Presi- 
dent, March  10,  1908... 172 

Dawson,  Thomas  C,  minister  to  Colombia: 

Telegram  to  Mr.  Hoot,  February  14,  1909 193 

Telegram  to  Mr.  Root,  February  17,  1909 193 

Letter  to  Mr.  Root,  February  17,  1909 193 

Telegram  to  Mr.  Root,  February  23.  1909 195 

Letter  to  Mr.  Root,  February  26,  1909 196 

Telegram  to  Secretary  of  State,  March  1 ,  1909 212 

Telegram  to  Mr.  Knox,  March  10,  1909 212 

Telegram  to  Mr.  Knox,  March  14,  1909 212 

Telegram  to  Mr.  Knox,  March  16,  1909 214 

Telegram  to  Mr.  Knox,  March  18,  1909 214 

Telegram  to  Mr.  Knox,  March  23,  1909 218 

Telegram  to  Mr.  Knox,  March  26.  1909 220 

Telegram  to  Mr.  Knox,  March  27.  1909 220 

Letter  to  Mr.  Knox  (edited),  Marcto  29,  1909 221 

El  Neuvo  Tiempo,  Bogota: 

Article  published  Januarv  L3,  1909 187 

Article  published  February  12,  1909 191 

Hibben,  Paxton,  charge  d'affaires  American  Legation,  Bogota: 

Letter  to  Mr.  Root,  October  6,  1908 ' .'• 174 

Letter  to  Mr.  Root,  January  13,  1909 187 

Letter  to  Mr.  Root,  February  12,  1909 v 191 

Telegram  to  Mr.  Knox,  May'  10,  1909 232 

Telegram  to  Mr.  Knox,  May  12,  1909 232 


VI  CONTENTS. 

Hibben,  Paxton,  charge  d'affaires  American  Legation,  Bogota — Continued.  rage. 

Letter  to  Mr.  Knox  (edited),  May  13,  1909 233 

Letter  to  Mr.  Knox,  May  27,  1909 237 

Knox,  P.  C,  Secretary  of  State: 

Telesrram  to  Mr.  Dawson,  March  15.  1909 213 

Telegram  to  Mr.  Dawson,  March  17,  1909 214 

Telegram  to  Mr.  Dawson,  March  19,  1909 215 

Memorandum,  March  19,  1909 215 

Telegram  to  Mr.  Dawson,  March  19,  1909 216 

Letter  to  Mr.  Cortes,  March  19,  1909 216 

Letter  to  Mr.  Cortes,  March  22,  1909 217 

Letter  to  Mr.  Dawson,  April  19,  1909 230 

Loomis,  Francis,  Acting  Secretary  of  State,  letter  to  Mr.  Russell,  January  9, 

1905 110 

Palau,  Dr.  Ignacio,  interview  in  Correo  Nacional 127 

Papers  transmitted  in  response  to  Senate  resolution  346  (tripartite  treaties), 

list  of 107 

Northcott,  Elliott,  minister  to  Colombia: 

Telegram  to  Mr.  Knox,  September  29,  1909 238 

Letter  to  Mr.  Knox,  October  1,  1909 238 

Letter  to  Mr.  Knox,  October  7,  1909 242 

Telegram  to  Mr.  Knox,  October  13,  1909 243 

Letter  to  Mr.  Knox,  October  29,  1909 245 

Letter  to  Minister  Calderon,  October  26,  1909 245 

Telegram  to  Mr.  Knox,  January  5,  1910 247 

Letter  to  Mr.  Knox,  February  18,  1910 247 

Letter  to  Mr.  Knox,  May  13,  1910 248 

Letter  to  Mr.  Calderon,  May  12,  1910 249 

Reyes,  Rafael,  President  of  Colombia: 

Conferences  with  Mr.  Barrett,  May  23,  1906 113 

Memorandum  submitted  to  Mr.  Barrett,  May  23,  1906 117 

Summary  of  proposals  to  Mr.  Barrett,  May  23,  1906 115 

Informal  memorandum  presented  to  Mr.  Barrett,  June  12,  1906 124 

Telegram  to  Colombian  Legation,  January  12,  1909 186 

Presidential  message,  February  22,  1909 196 

Presidential  message,  February  22,  1909 219 

Manifesto,  May  10,  1909 237 

Root,  Elihu,  Secretary  of  State: 

Telegram  to  Mr.  Barrett,  June  14,  1906 128 

Letter  to  Mr.  Barrett,  July  2,  1906 128 

Interview  with  Mr.  Barrett  and  Mr.  Cobo,  Cartagena,  Colombia,  September 

24,  1906 129, 131 

Letter  to  Mr.  Obaldia,  April  24,  1907 147 

Letter  to  Mr.  Cortes,  August  26,  1907 157 

Letter  to  Mr.  Cortes,  transmitting  draft  of  treaty  submitted  by  charge' 
d'affaires  of  Panama  for  agreement  between  Panama  and  Colombia, 

December  17,  1907 157 

Letter   to  Mr.  <  iortes,  January  28,  1908 168 

Letter  to  Mr.  ( !ortes,  February  18,  1908 170 

Letter  to  Mr.  Cortes,  March  17,  1908 173 

Letter  to  London  &  <  'ounty  Banking  Co.  (Ltd.),  March  17,  1908 173 

Letter  to  Mr.  Cortes,  December  29,  1908 175 

Draft  of  Colombia-Panama  treaty,  December  29,  1908 175 

Letter  to  Mr.  Cortes,  December  30,  1908 179 

Draft  of  treaty,  United  States-*  lolombia,  December  30,  1908 180 

Russell.  William  W.,  United  States  minister  to  Colombia: 

Letter  to  Mr.  Hav,  December  20,  1904 110 

Letter  to  Mr.  Hay,  January  13,  1905 HI 

Telegram  to  Mr.  Hay.  May  S,  1905 HI 

Squiers.  ('.  T.,  minister  to  Panama: 

Telegram  to  Mr.  Hoot,  January  30,  1909 190 

Letter  to  Mr.  Knox,  June  17,  1909 238 

Taft-Arango  protocol,  August  17,  1907 154 

Taft.  William  II..  President  of  the  United  States: 

Letter  to  Mr.  Wilson,  transmitting  protocols  between  United  States  and 

Colombia,  and  between  Colombia  and  Panama,  August  17,  1907 152 

Letter  to  Mr.  Loot,  March  11,  1908 171 


CONTENTS.  VII 

Page. 

Triana.  Eduardo  Pore/,,  charge  d'affaires.  Colombian  legation  at  Washington. 

letter  to  Mr.  Root,  July  2,  1906 128 

United  States  and  Colombia,  protocol  transmitted  by  President  Taft,  August 

17,  1907.... ' 154 

Wilson,  Huntington,  Acting  Secretary  of  State: 

Letter  to  Mr.  Dawson,  April  26,  1909 230 

Letter  to  Mr.  Hibben,  Mav  4,  1909 232 

Telegram  to  Bogota  Legation,  June  11,  1909 237 

Letter  to  Mr.  Northcott,  October  28,  1909 244 

Letter  to  Mr.  Northcott,  November  4,  1909 246 

Telegram  to  Bogota  Legation,  March  24,  1910 1 '     248 

Wilson,  Woodrow,  President  of  the  United  States,  message  transmitting  corre-' 

spondence  relating  to  tripartite  convention  and  Hay-Concha  protocol. 104 

PART   IV-b. 

Concha,  Jose  Vicente,  Colombian  minister: 

Letter  to  Mr.  Hay,  April  8,  1902 250 

Letter  to  Mr.  Hav,  July  19,  1902 253 

Letter  to  Mr.  Hay,  September  22,  1902 254 

Letter  to  Mr.  Hay,  October  26,  1902 255 

Letter  to  Mr.  Hay,  November  11,  1902 257 

Letter  to  Mr.  Hay,  November  11,  1902 258 

Memorandum  of  remarks,  November,  1902 258 

Letter  to  Mr.  Hay,  November  22,  1902 263 

Memorandum  to  Mr.  Hay,  November  22.  1902 265 

Hav,  John,  Secretary  of  State: 

*  Letter  to  Mr.  Concha,  April  5,  1902 250 

Letter  to  Mr.  Concha,  April  18,  1902 252 

Letter  to  Mr.  Concha,  July  18,  1902 253 

Letter  to  Mr.  Concha,  October  28,  1902 256 

Letter  to  Mr.  Concha,  November  5,  1902 260 

Letter  to  Mr.  Concha,  November  18,  1902 260 

Memorandum  to  Mr.  Concha,  November  18,  1902 261 

Hill,  David  J.,  Acting  Secretary  of  State,  letter  to  Mr.  Concha,  July  21,  1902. . .  253 

Jimenez,  Dionisio,  Colombian  citizen,  letter  to  minister  of  foreign  relations, 

August  27,  1902 270 

Papers  relating  to  Hay-Concha  protocol,  list  of 250 

APPENDIX. 

LIST    OF    PUBLIC  JnOCUMENTS 

1.  Clay ton-Bulwer  treaty.     Signed  at  Washington  April  19,  1850      Proclaimed 

July  5,  1850 '. 272 

2.  Hay-Herran  (Panama  Canal)  treaty.     Signed  at  Washington  on  January  22. 

1903.  Approved  by  the  United  States  Senate  March  17,  1903.  Never 
acted  upon  by  the  Colombian  Congress.     (57th  Cong. ,  2d  sess.,  S\  Ex.  K.) .       277 

3.  First  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty.     Signed  February  5,  1900.     Amended  by  the 

United  States  Senate  and  never  ratified      (56th  Cong  ,  1st  sess.,-  S.  Doc. 

No.  160.) 289 

4.  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty .     Signed  at  Washington  November  18,  1901.     Pro- 

claimed February  22,  1902 292 

5.  Hay-Bunau-Varilla  convention  (Panama  Canal  treaty)      Signed  at  Wash- 

ington November  18,  1903.     Proclaimed  February  26,  1904 295 

6.  Treaties  with  Panama  and  Colombia  relating  to  the  Panama  Canal.     Signed 

with  Panama  (Root-Arosemena)  January  9,  1909  Signed  with  Colombia 
(Root-Cortes)  January  9,  1909.  Treaty  between  Panama  and  Colombia 
(Cortes-Aroseniena).  Signed  January  9,  1909.  Consented  to  by  United 
States  Senate  and  by  Panaman  Congress  Never  acted  upon  by  Colom- 
bian Congress.     (60th  Cong.,  2d  sess.,  confidential,  Ex   N.) 314 

7.  President  Taft's  message.     August  19,    1912.     The  Panama  Canal.     (62d 

Cong.,  2d  sees.,  H.  Doc.  914.) 326 

8.  Panama  Canal  act.     Approved  August  24.  1912.     (Public,  No    337.  H  R. 

21969.) 328 


VIII  CONTENTS. 

Page. 
9.  Memorandum  to  accompany  canal  act.     Signed  bv  President  Taft  August 

24,  1912. 339 

10.  President's  proclamation  Panama  Canal  toll  rates.     November  13,  1912...       344 

11.  President's  message  giving  correspondence  relating  to  the  revolution  on  the 

Isthmus  of  Panama,  November  16,  1903.     (58th  Cong.,  1st  sess.,  H.  Doc. 

No.  8.). ., 345 

12.  Second  message  giving  further  correspondence  on  the  same  subject,  Novem- 

ber 27,  1903.     (58th  Cong.,  1st  sess.,  H.  Doc.  No.  8,  pt.  2.) 368 

13.  President's  message  giving  correspondence  between  the  United  States  and 

Colombia.     (58th  Cong.,  2d  sess.,  S.  Doc.  No.  51.) 377 

14.  President '8  message  giving  correspondence  showing  relations  between  the 

United  States,  Colombia,  and  Panama,  January  18,  1904.     (58th  Cong., 

2d  sess.,  S.  Doc.  No.  95.) 480 

15.  Hay-Concha  protocol  and  correspondence  between  the  United  States  and 

Colombia.     (57th  Cong.,  1st  sess.,  H.  Doc.  No.  611.) 550 

16.  President's  message  giving  correspondence  showing  relations  of  the  United 

States  with  Colombia  and  Panama,  December  8,  1908.     (60th  Cong.,  2d 

sess  ,  S.  Doc.  No.  542.) 575 


LBTTBBS     )F    TRANSMITTAL.  XI 

second  Hay- Pauncefote  feceaty  of  November  18,  1901,  negotiated  in 
conformity  with  the  amendments  advised  by  the  Senate  with  regard 
to  the  first  treaty  of  the  year  before. 

Copies  of  other  pertinent  documents  and  correspondence  are  added, 
as  listed  below,  including  the  recent  correspondence  with  Great 
Britain  in  regard  to  the  interpretation  of  the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty 
in  connection  with  the  levying  of  canal  tolls. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

W.  J.  Bryan. 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  April  23,  1914" 


'  i ,  VP      IF    PAPERS. 

Part    I. 

Mr.  Hay  to  Mr.  White,  December  T.  1898.     No.  976. 

Mr.  White  to  Mr    Hay,  December  21,  1898.     Telegram. 

Mr.  White  to  Mr.  Hay,  December  22,  1898.     Telegram. 

Mr.  White  to  Mr.  Hay,  December  22.  1898.    No.  613. 

Mr.  Hay  to  Mr.  Choate,  December  22   1900.     No.  518. 

Mr.  Hay  to  Lord  Pauncefote,  December  _'2,  1900.     No.  2013. 

Lord  Pauncefote  to  Mr   Hay,  December  26.  1900.    No.  379. 

Mr.  Hay  to  Mr.  Choate,  December  29,  1900.    Telegram. 

Mr.  Choate  to  Mr   Hay,  January  11,  1901.    Telegram. 

Mr.  Choate  to  Mr.  Hay,  January  12,  1901.     No.  479. 

Mr.  Hay  to  Mr.  Choate.  January  25.  1901. 

Mr.  Hay  to  Mr,  Choate,  February  16,  1901.     Telegram. 

Mr.  Choate  to  Mr.  Hay,  February  19,  1901.     Telegram. 

The  Marquis  of  Lansdowne  to    Lord   Panncefote.   February  22,   1901. 

Mr.  Hay  to  Mr.  Choate,  March  13,  1901.     Telegram. 

Mr.  Hay  to  Mr.  Choate,  March  L5,  1901.    Telegram. 

Mr.  Hay  to  Lord  Pauncefote,  March  25,  1901.     No.  2119. 

Lord  Pauncefote  to  the  Marquis  of  Lansdowne.  April  25,  1901. 

Mr.  Hay  to  Mr.  Choate,  April  27.  L901. 

Mr.  Choate  to  Mr.  Hay,  June  24,  1901. 

The  Marquis  of  Lansdowne  to  Mr.  Lowther.  August  3,  1901. 

Mr.  Choate  to  Mr    Hay,  August  16,  1901. 

Mr.  Choate  to  Mr.  Hay,  August  20,  1901. 

Mr.  Hay  to  Mr.  Choate,  August  22,  1901.    Telegram. 

Mr.  Hay  to  Mr.  Choate,  September  2,  1901. 

Mr.  Hay  to  Lord  Pauncefote    September  2,  1901. 

Mr.  Choate  to  Mr.  Hay,  September  3,  1901. 

Tbe  Marquis  of  Lansdown  to  Mr    Lowther,  September  12,  1901. 

Mr.  Choate  to  Mr.  Hay,  September  20.  1901.     Telegram. 

Mr.  Choate  to  Mr.  Hay.  September  21,  1901.    Telegram. 

Mr.  Hay  to  Mr.  Choate,  September  21,  1901. 

Mr.  Choate  to  Mr.  Hay,  September  25,  1901. 

Mr.  Choate  to  Mr.  Hay.  September  27,  1901.    Telegram. 

Mr.  Choate  to  Mr.  Hay,  September  27,  1901. 

Mr.  Hay  to  Mr.  Cboate,  September  29.  1901.     Telegram. 

Mr.  Hay  to  Mr.  Choate,  October  2,  1901.    Telegram. 

Mr.  Choate  to  Mr.  Hay.  October  2,  1901.    Telegram. 

Mr.  Choate  to  Mr.  Hay,  October  2,  1901. 

Mr.  Hay  to  Mr.  Qfcoate,  October  3,  1901.    Telegram. 

Mr.  Choate  to  Mr    Hay.  October  9,  1901. 

Mr.  Choate  to  Mr.  Hay,  October  9.  1901.     Telegram. 

Mr.  White  to  Mr.  Hay,  October  23,  1901.    Telegram. 

The  Marquis  of  Lansdowne  to  Lord  Pauncefote.  October  23,  1901. 

Mr.  White  to  Mr.  Hay,  October  26,  1901. 

Mr.  Hay  to  Lord  Pauncefote,  November  S,  1901. 

Lord  Pauncefote  to  the  Marquis   >f       nsdowne,  November  18,  1901. 


Xn  LIST    OF   PAPERS. 

Lord  Paimcefote  to  Marquis  of  Lansdowne   November  19   1901 

Mr.  Hay  to  Senator  Cullorn,  December  12,  1901. 

Mr.  Hay  to  the  Senate  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations  History  of  the 
amendments  proposed.  Printed  January  18v  1911.  Public  Document,  Sixty- 
first  Congress,  third  session,  No.  746. 

Mr.  Hay  to  Lord  Pauncefote,  December  16,  1901     No.,  2316. 

Lord  Pauncefote  to  Marquis  of  Lansdowne,  December  16,  1901. 

Lord  Pauncefote  to  Mr.  Hay,  February  18,  1902 

Mr.  Hay  to  Lord  Pauncefote,  February  20.  1902 

Part  II. 

Mr.  Root  to  Mr.  Bryce,  January  S,  1909. 

Mr.  Bryce  to  Mr.  Root,  January  8,  1909. 

Mr.  Root  to  Mr.  Reid,  January  9,  1909. 

Mr.  Reid  to  Mr.  Root,  January  11,  1909. 

Mr.  Reid  to  Mr.  Root.  January  15.  1909.    Telegram 

Mr.  Root  to  British  ambassador,  January  16.  1909. 

Mr.  Root  to  Mr.  Reid,  January  16.  1909. 

Mr.  Reid  to  Mr.  Root,  January  25,  1909.     No.  824 

The  British  ambassador  to  Secretary  of  State,  February  3,  1909. 

Mr.  Bacon  to  Mr.  Bryce,  February  20,  1909. 

Mr.  Bryce  to  Mr.  Bacon,  February  24,  1909. 

Part  III. 

Mr.  Innes  to  the  Secretary  of  State.  July  8.  1932. 

Mr.  Innes  to  Mr.  Knox,  August  27.  1912. 

Mr.  Wilson  to  Mr.  Innes,  August  30.  1912. 

Mr.  Phillips  to  Mr.  Knox,  October  11,  1912. 

The  Secretary  of   State  for  Foreign  Affairs   ol   Great  Britain  to  Mr.   Bryce, 

November  14,  1912. 
Mr.  Knox  to  the  American  charge  d'affaires  at  London.,  January  17,  1913. 
Mr.  Bryce  to  Mr.  Knox,  February  27,  1913. 


CORRESPONDENCE  SUBMITTED  APRIL  23,  1914 


LETTERS  OF  TRANSMITTAL. 

To  the  Senate  of  the  United  States: 

I  transmit  herewith,  in  response  to  the  resolution  of  the  Senate  of 
the  14th  instant,  a  report  of  the  Secretary  of  State  with  accompany- 
ing papers,  in  relation  to  the  negotiation  and  application  of  certain 
treaties  on  the  subject  of  the  construction  of  an  interoceanic  canal. 

Woodrow  Wilson. 
The  White  House, 

Washington,  April  &£,  1914- 


To  the  President: 

The  undersigned.  Secretary  of  State,  to  whom  was  referred  the 
resolution  of  the  Senate  adopted  April  14,  1914,  requesting  the 
President — 

if  not  incompatible  with  the  public  interest,  to  cause  to  be  transmitted  to  the 
Senate  all  information,  papers,  correspondence,  messages,  dispatches,  and  rec- 
ords in  the  Department  of  State  relative  to  the  superseding  of  the  Clayton- 
Bulwer  treaty  by  the  so-called  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty  (signed  November 
eighteenth,  nineteen  hundred  and  one),  from  the  beginning  of  negotiations  to 
this  date,  and  also  relative  to  said  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty;  and  also  similar 
information,  papers,  correspondence,  messages,  etc.,  relative  to  the  Hay-Bunau- 
Varilla  treaty  between  the  United  States  and  Colombia — 

has  the  honor  to  submit  herewith  a  selection  of  correspondence,  com- 
prising all  matters  of  record  in  the  Department  of  State  pertaining 
to  the  negotiation  and  interpretation  of  the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty, 
as  well  as  a  copious  selection  of  unrecorded  personal  letters  bearing 
upon  the  provisions  thereof  which  were  exchanged  between  the  Sec- 
retary of  State  and  the  negotiators  of  that  treaty.  In  adding  this 
unofficial  correspondence  it  has  been  the  desire  of  the  undersigned  to 
make  the  present  compilation  as  completely  as  possible  a  full  re- 
sponse to  the  wish  of  the  Senate  by  furnishing  to  that  body  all 
accessible  information  tending  to  show  the  motives  of  the  negotiators 
and  their  understanding  of  the  provisions  of  the  Hay-Pauncefote 
treaty. 

As  it  appears  from  the  proceedings  in  the  Senate  when  the  fore- 
going resolution  was  adopted  that  it  was  contemplated  by  that  body 
that  it  should  also  be  possessed  of  whatever  correspondence  took 
place  between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  in  connection  with 
the  negotiation  of  the  treaty  between  the  United  States  and  Colombia, 
there  has  been  included  in  the  subjoined  collection  of  papers  a  selec- 
tion of  the  documents  of  record  concerning  the  attempted  negotiation 
of  a  conventional  adjustment  of  all  matters  pending  between  the 
United  States  and  the  respective  Republics  of  Colombia  and  Panama. 


X  LETTERS    OF    TRANSMITTAL. 

With  respect  to  the  treaty  negotiations  with  Colombia,  thus  called 
for  by  the  resolution.,  a  brief  summary  of  the  situation  may  not  be 
amiss. 

The  convention  commonly  known  as  the  "  Hay-Bunau-Varilla ;' 
treaty  was  signed  between  the  United  States  and  Panama  Novem- 
ber 18,  1903,  for  the  purpose  of  providing  for  the  construction 
of  a  ship  canal  across  the  Isthmus  of  Panama.  By  its  nineteenth 
article  that  convention  stipulated  the  right  of  the  Panaman  Gov- 
ernment to  transport  over  the  canal  its  vessels  and  its  troops  and 
munitions  of  war  in  such  vessels  without  paying  charges  of  any 
kind.  This  stipulation  followed,  mutatis  mutandis,  the  text  of  ar- 
ticle 17  of  the  unperfected  Hay-Herran  convention  of  January  22, 
1903,  with  Colon: bia,  it  being  appropriate  that  Panama,  having 
succeeded  to  the  territorial  control  of  the  canal  route,  should,  as 
grantor,  be  given  the  privileges  theretofore  rightly  due  to  Colombia 
when  occupying  the  position  of  grantor. 

Neither  the  Hay-Herran  convention  with  Colombia  nor  the  Hay- 
Bunau-Varilla  convention  with  Panama  called  forth  at  the  time  any 
remonstrance  from  Great  Britain  on  the  sccre  of  the  privileges 
offered  originally  to  Colombia  and  subsequently  granted  to  Panama 
in  respect  to  the  use  of  the  canal  by  their  Government  vessels.  It 
was  not  until  six  years  later,  when  three  treaties  between  the  United 
States  and  the  Republics  of  Colombia  and  Panama,  respectively, 
and  between  Panama  and  Colombia,  were  negotiated  with  a  view  to 
the  settlement  of  all  differences  growing  out  of  the  separation  of 
Panama,  that  the  Government  of  Great  Britain  gave  attention  to  a 
provision  found  in  article  2  of  the  Eoot-Cortes  treaty  of  January  9, 
1909  (unperfected),  stipulating  that: 

The  Republic  of  Colombia  shall  have  liberty  at  all  times  to  convey  through 
the  ship  canal  now  in  course  of  construction  by  the  United  States  across  the 
Isthmus  of  Panama  the  troops,  materials  for  war,  and  ships  of  war  of  the 
Republic  of  Colombia  without  paying  any  duty  to  the  United  States,  even  in 
case  of  an  international  war  between  Colombia  and  another  country. 

*  *  *  *  *  *  * 

The  foregoing  provisions  of  this  article  shall  not,  however,  apply  in  case 
of  war  between  Colombia  and  Panama. 

This  Root-Cortes  treaty  with  Colombia  received  the  advisory  con- 
sent of  the  Senate  March  3,  1909,  but  was  not  ratified  by  Colombia, 
and  died  at  the  expiration  of  the  term  fixed  within  which  to  ex- 
change ratifications. 

The  correspondence  herewith  submitted  had  with  Great  Britain 
in  regard  to  the  exemption  proposed  to  be  granted  to  Colombia  by 
the  uncompleted  treaty  of  1909  shows  the  ground  of  the  British 
objection,  as  well  as  the  answer  made  thereto  by  Secretary  Root, 
which  elicited  the  declaration  on  behalf  of  Great  Britain  that — 

His  Majesty's  Government  consider  that  they  can  forego  the  making  of  such 
a  protest  as  they  had  formerly  contemplated  and  that  they  accept  the  assurance 
contained  in  your  (Mr.  Root's)  note. 

To  the  end  of  making  the  present  compilation  as  complete  as  is 
practicable  and  with  a  dew  to  the  convenient  examination  of  the 
subject  in  its  entirety  'here  are  added  copies  of  the  Clayton-Bulwer 
treaty  of  July  5,  1850,  and  of  the  first  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty,  signed 
February   5,   1.900,,   wnich    Latter  was  subsequently  replaced  by  the 


DIPLOMATIC  HISTORY  OF  THE  PANAMA  CANAL. 


PART  I. 
PAPERS  SUBMITTED. 


31  r.  Hay  to  31  r.  White. 

No.  976.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  December  7,  1898. 

Sir  :  You  are  probably  aware  that  the  commission  appointed  some 
time  ago,  under  the  chairmanship  of  Admiral  Walker,  to  examine 
into  the  subject  of  the  Nicaragua  canal  is  approaching  the  comple- 
tion of  its  labors  and  will  soon  be  ready  to  report.  They  have  gone 
into  the  subject  with  more  care,  patience,  and  accuracy  than  any 
preceding  body  which  has  examined  it,  and  it  is  to  be  hoped  that 
when  the  report  is  presented  it  will  contain  the  elements  for  a  final 
decision  of  the  material  problems  involved.  There  is  also  a  bill 
before  the  Senate,  the  result  of  great  pains  and  research,  which,  if 
accepted  by  both  branches  of  Congress,  will  open  the  way  for  the 
Government  of  the  United  States  to  take  a  more  efficient  part  in  the 
execution  of  this  great  enterprise  than  has  hitherto  been  practicable. 
At  the  same  time  there  is  a  growing  conviction  throughout  the  coun- 
try that  some  definite  action  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States 
has  now  become  necessary  if  the  labors  of  the  past  are  to  be  made 
useful  and  the  linking  of  the  Atlantic  and  the  Pacific  Oceans  by  a 
practicable  waterway  is  to  be  realized.  The  events  of  the  past  year 
have  made  it  more  than  ever  necessary  that  some  means  of  communi- 
cation between  the  Atlantic  and  the  Pacific  should  be  at  once  accom- 
plished. Such  means  of  communication  seem  at  this  moment  indis- 
pensable both  for  our  commercial  and  national  interests.  Thus  far 
the  results  which  have  been  reached,  both  by  way  of  research  and 
experiment,  are  not  such  as  to  have  convinced  the  President  that  the 
canal  can  be  built  by  any  private  corporation  unassisted  by  national 
encouragement  or  aid;  nor  is  it  evident  as  yet  that  the  returns  from 
the  commercial  use  of  such  a  waterway  will  for  some  time  to  come 
be  adequate  for  its  maintenance  and  for  anything  like  sufficient  inter- 
est on  the  vast  amount  of  capital  involved.  The  intervention  of  the 
Government  seems,  therefore,  to  be  necessary  if  any  practical  result 
is  to  be  achieved. 

There  has  been,  as  you  are  aware,  a  great  deal  of  discussion  as  to 
whether  the  provisions  of  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty  actually  stand 
in  the  way  of  any  practical  action  by  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  in  the  construction  and  control  of  the  canal.  It  is  even  held 
by  many  of  our  public  men  that  the  treaty  is  already  obsolete  and 
that  it  has  been  so  treated  and  regarded  by  the  action  of  both  the 

42112— S.  Doc.  474,  63-2 1  1 


2  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA   CANAL. 

British  and  the  American  Governments.  I  do  not  wish  at  this 
moment  to  revive  or  to  entertain  any  controversy  upon  these  points. 
The  President  thinks  it  is  more  judicious  to  approach  the  British 
Government  in  a  frank  and  friendly  spirit  of  mutual  accommoda- 
tion, and  to  ask  whether  it  may  not  be  possible  to  secure  such  modi- 
fication of  the  provisions  of  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty  as  to  admit 
such  action  by  the  Government  of  the  United  States  as  may  render 
possible  the  accomplishment  of  a  work  which  will  be  for  the  benefit 
of  the  entire  civilized  world.  The  President  hopes  he  may  take  it 
for  granted  that  the  British  Government  not  only  have  no  wish  to 
prevent  the  accomplishment  of  this  great  work,  but  that  they  feel  a 
lively  interest  in  it  and  appreciate  the  fact  that  the  benefits  of  its 
successful  achievement  will  be  to  the  advantage  not  only  of  England 
and  America  but  of  all  commercial  nations. 

You  will  therefore  take  an  early  opportunity  of  conversing  with 
Lord  Salisbury  upon  this  matter,  of  inviting  his  views  in  regard  to 
the  general  situation,  and  of  ascertaining  whether  he  would  prefer 
to  let  us  know  the  inclinations  of  the  British  Government  through 
you  or  empower  Sir  Julian  Pauncefote  to  confer  with  me  in  regard 
to  it,  and,  if  possible,  to  come  to  an  agreement  which  will  be  satis- 
factory and  profitable  to  both  countries. 
I  am,  etc., 

John  Hay. 


Mr.  White  to  Mr.  Hay. 

[Telegram.] 

American  Embassy, 
London,  December  21,  1898. 

Prospects  of  agreement  promising.  Principal  secretary  of  state 
for  foreign  affairs  favorably  impressed.  Gratified  by  your  dispatch 
which  he  pronounced  admirable. "  He  seems  personally  friendly,  as 
I  know  Balfour  is,  to  the  construction  of  the  canal,  and  admitted  in 
strict  confidence  during  our  conversation  that  a  work  of  such  magni- 
tude can  only  be  understaken  by  and  under  the  auspices  of  a  govern- 
ment; also  that  it  is  better  such  a  canal  should  be  under  protection 
of  a  single  power  such  as  the  United  States  than  two  or  more.  He 
willingly  assented  to  negotiations  being  conducted  through  you  and 
Pauncefote.  Upon  hearing  that,  I  thought  you  would  prefer  it. 
Dispatch  and  private  letter  next  Saturday  bag. 

White. 


Mr.   WMte  to  Mr.  Hay. 

[Telegram.] 

American  Embassy, 

London,  December  22,  1898. 
I  had  an  interview  to-day  with  British  minister  for  foreign  affairs 
on  the  subject  of  your  dispatch  No.  976,  which  I  read  to  him.  He 
reciprocates  very  heartily  the  sentiments  it  contains;  will  confer  with 
the  board  of  trade  and  other  departments  concerned,  and  will  in- 
struct the  British  ambassador  at  Washington  to  confer  with  you  with 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL.  3 

a  view  to  ascertaining  the  wishes  and  proposals  of  our  Government 
and  to  meet  them  if  possible.  He  said  nothing  indicative  of  opposi- 
tion, much  less  hostility,  on  the  part  of  Her  Majesty's  Government 
to  the  construction  of  the  canal,  and  I  do  not  believe  if  it  is  to  be  open 
to  all  nations  on  equal  terms  that  there  will  be  any  serious  difficulty 
in  effecting  an  agreement  satisfactory  to  both  nations. 

White. 


Mr.  White  to  Mr.  Hay. 

No.  613]  American  Embassy, 

London,  December  22,  1898. 

Sir:  Referring  to  your  instruction  numbered  976,  of  the  7th  in- 
stant, relative  to  the  proposed  Nicaragua  Canal  and  the  Clayton- 
Bulwer  treaty,  I  have  the  honor  to  inform  you  that  I  had  an  inter- 
view yesterdajr  with  the  Marquis  of  Salisbury  on  the  subject. 

I  read  your  instruction  to  his  lordship,  but  did  not  leave  a  copy 
with  him.  He  was  evidently  gratified  at  the  frank  and  friendly 
spirit  of  mutual  accommodation  in  which  you  had  instructed  me  to 
approach  Her  Majesty's  Government,  and  requested  me  to  inform 
you  that  he  reciprocated  your  sentiments  very  heartily. 

Upon  my  asking  him  for  an  expression  of  his  views  in  the  matter, 
Lord  Salisbury  said  that  before  complying  with  my  request  he  would 
like  to  know  the  wishes  and  proposals  of  my  Government,  and  exactly 
what  modifications  we  should  like  brought  about  in  the  Clayton- 
Bulwer  treaty.  He  added  that  in  any  case  it  would  be  necessary  for 
him,  before  expressing  an  opinion  on  the  subject  in  behalf  of  Her 
Majesty's  Government,  to  consult  the  board  of  trade  and  other  de- 
partments concerned. 

I  suggested  that  the  best  and  most  expeditious  way  to  ascertain  the 
views  of  my  Government  would  be  for  him  to  authorize  Her 
Majesty's  ambassador  at  Washington  to  confer  with  you  in  reference 
thereto,  an  opinion  in  which  he  concurred,  and  said  that  he  would 
communicate  immediately  by  telegraph  with  Sir  Julian  Pauncefote, 
which,  later  in  the  day,  he  informed  me  he  had  done. 

A  brief  informal  conversation  followed,  during  which  Lord  Salis- 
bury said  nothing  to  lead  me  to  suppose  that  he  is  unfavorably  dis- 
posed— much  less  hostile — to  the  construction  of  the  canal  under  our 
auspices,  provided  it  is  to  be  open  to  the  ships  of  all  countries  on 
equal  terms. 

I  am  inclined  to  think  that  the  construction  of  the  Nicaragua 
Canal  will  be  viewed  with  favor  by  the  people  of  this  country,  and 
consequently  that  we  are  not  likely  to  encounter  any  serious  difficulty 
on  the  part  of  the  British  Government  in  respect  to  such  modifica- 
tions as  may  be  necessary,  to  enable  us  to  make  it,  in  the  Clayton- 
Bulwer  treaty;  the  more  so,  as,  since  the  construction  of  the  Suez 
Canal,  that  of  Nicaragua  will  no  longer  have  the  same  importance 
for  the  British  Empire  which  it  had  when  the  treaty  in  question  was 
negotiated. 

In  this  connection  I  inclose  an  article  which  appeared  in  the  Lon- 
don Spectator  of  the  10th  instant,  and  which  embodies  the  opinion, 
1  think,  of  a  very  considerable  majority  of  those  who  have  given  the 
matter  their  attention  in  this  country. 


4  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA   CANAL. 

I  inclose  also  the  translation  of  a  cablegram  which   I  sent  you  in 
cipher  yesterday  after  my  interview  with  the  Marquis  of  Salisbury. 
I  have,  etc.. 

Henry  White. 


[Inclosure  to  No.  613.] 

[From  the  Spectator,  December  10,  1898.] 

THE  NICARAGUA  CANAL. 

We  pointed  out  at  the  end  of  last  summer  that  it  could  not  be 
long  before  our  statesmen  would  have  to  bring  their  minds  to  bear 
upon  the  question  of  the  Nicaragua  Canal  and  the  Clayton-Bulwer 
treaty,  and  this  is  exactly  what  has  happened.  The  assertion  by  the 
President  of  the  United  States  in  his  message  to  Congress  that  "the 
construction  [of  the  Nicaragua  Canal]  is  now  more  than  ever  indis- 
pensable, and  our  policy  more  imperatively  than  ever  calls  for  its 
control  by  this  Government."  has  at  once  brought  the  matter  within 
the  region  of  practical  politics.  We  make  no  claim  to  any  special 
prescience  in  the  matter.  The  Americans  have  always  longed  for  an 
interoceanic  canal,  and  it  was  evident  that  directly  they  had 
acquired  possessions  in  the  West  Indies  opposite  the  coasts  of  Central 
America,  and  also  an  island  empire  in  the  Pacific,  they  would 
desire  to  link  them  by  water  communication.  A  revival  of  interest 
in  the  Nicaragua  Canal  was  thus  an  inevitable  sequence  of  the  war. 
But  the  Americans  can  not  obtain  that  control  over  the  Nicaragua 
Canal  which  they  desire  unless  we  are  willing  to  abandon  our  rights 
under  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty — an  instrument  under  which  both 
powers  bound  themselves  not  to  obtain  an  exclusive  control  over 
any  interoceanic  canal.  We  and  the  Americans,  that  is,  agreed  some 
48  years  ago  that  a  canal  should  only  be  made  and  controlled  by  the 
two  powers  acting  together,  and  in  no  case  by  either  power  singly. 
Thus,  if  we  choose  we  can  no  doubt  veto  the  making  of  the  canal 
and  prevent  the  Americans  doing  what  they  so  very  much  want 
to  do.  The  people  of  this  country  have,  therefore,  to  consider 
whether  they  will  or  will  not  veto  the  canal.  We  are  glad  to  see 
already  a  good  many  indications  that  we  do  not  intend  to  exercise 
our  right  of  veto.  The  Times  in  its  leading  article  on  the  Presi- 
dent's message  uses  words  which  will,  we  believe,  be  indorsed  not 
only  by  the  Government  but  by  the  majority  of  English  people. 

The  Times  says,  most  reasonably,  that  "  if  the  freedom  of  the 
waterway  were  secured  to  ships  of  all  nations,  as  in  the  case  of  the 
Suez  Canal,  we  do  not  see  what  object  we  should  have  in  standing 
strictly  upon  claims  which  originated  when  the  circumstances  were 
altogether  different."  Not  less  statesmanlike  has  been  the  tone 
adopted  by  the  St.  James  Gazette.  It  has,  however,  been  suggested 
by  the  Daily  Mail,  on  the  other  hand,  that  we  ought  not  to  give  up 
our  rights,  and  that  we  should  insist  upon  a  joint  control  of  the 
waterway.  We  do  not  think,  however,  that  this  contention  will,  if 
it  is  carefully  examined,  find  favor  here.  Joint  control,  in  the  first 
place,  means  joint  guaranties  and  joint  expenditure,  and  we  do  not 
believe  that  the  people  of  this  country  are  prepared  to  spend  money 
in  Nicaragua.     We  have  plenty  of  objects  nearer  home  on  which  to 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  5 

use  our  spare  cash.  When  we  can  get  all  we  want  out  of  an  inter- 
oceanic  canal  controlled  by  America,  why  should  we  burden  our- 
selves in  the  matter?  The  United  States,  as  the  power  most  nearly 
and  vitally  interested,  may  think  it  worth  while  to  construct  or  help 
construct  the  canal,  but  our  interests  do  not  extend  so  far.  All  we 
want  is  that  the  canal  shall  be  made,  and  that  when  it  is  made  it 
shall  be  open  and  available  to  our  merchant  ships  and  ships  of  war 
as  freely  as  to  those  of  the  United  States  or  of  other  powers.  We 
merely  want  an  open  waterway  that  no  one  will  be  able  to  tamper 
with.  Xow.  our  contention  is  that  we  secure  this  object  better 
through  American  control  than  by  any  other  means.  Indeed,  if 
America  holds  the  canal  it  will  be  of  more  use  to  us  in  time  of  war 
than  if  we  held  it  ourselves.  Supposing  the  canal  ours  or  merely  the 
property  of  Nicaragua,  a  hostile  power  might  block  it  in  the  first 
instance  as  our  property,  and  in  the  second,  in  defiance  of  a  weak 
State.  If.  however,  it  is  controlled  by  America,  we  need  have  no 
fear  of  being  unable  to  use  it,  for  it  will  be  in  hands  strong  enough 
to  defend  it.  Take  the  case  of  a  war  with  France,  Russia,  and  Ger- 
many, and  the  canal  in  the  hands  of  the  United  States.  In  such  a 
case  we  might  be  hard  pressed  and  should  find  it  most  convenient  to 
be  able  to  pass  our  ships  through  the  canal  without  having  to  guard 
its  two  mouths  by  protecting  squadrons.  The  canal  would  be  a 
great  neutral  harbor  with  two  outlets.  Only  in  the  case  of  war  with 
the  United  States  would  American  control  be  anything  but  a 
benefit. 

But  even  in  that  case  we  doubt  whether  American  control  would 
be  worse  than  joint  control.  The  command  of  the  sea  would  have  to 
be  fought  out.  and  the  canal  would  fall  to  the  victor  as  the  prize. 
We  fail,  then,  to  see  why  we  should  make  ourselves  disagreeable  to 
the  Americans  by  vetoing  the  canal.  Rather  we  hold  that  we  ought 
to  look  with  the  greatest  possible  satisfaction  upon  its  construction. 
What  is  meant  by  "  control "  is  a  matter  which  requires  attention. 
An  able  American  publicist,  Prof.  Woolsey.  of  Yale,  in  his  work  on 
America's  Foreign  Policy,  recently  published  by  the  Century  Co.,  of 
New  York,  has  argued,  and  with  considerable  force  and  ingenuity, 
that  America  would  gain  nothing  by  exclusive  control,  and  that  she 
had  much  better  claim  no  more  rights  in  the  canal  than  those  given 
to  any  other  power.  Possibly  he  is  right  in  theory,  but  in  practice 
some  one  power  will  always  have  the  control  of  any  piece  of  terri- 
tory, and  so  of  every  artificial  waterway.  It  was  intended,  it  will 
be  remembered,  that  the  Suez  Canal  should  be  neutralized,  and  Mr. 
Woolsey.  making  a  most  pardonable  blunder,  imagines  that  it  was 
neutralized.  In  reality  the  neutrality  convention  was  never  brought 
into  force  and  is  now  a  dead  letter,  as  the  Spaniards  found  when  they 
tried  to  coal  their  fleet  at  Port  Said.  They  claimed  to  regard  the 
Suez  Canal  as  an  international  piece  of  water,  but  Lord  Cromer  in- 
sisted, and  maintained  his  point,  that  it  was  part  of  the  waters  of  a 
neutral  power.  The  Suez  Canal  is  not  internationalized  but  is  under 
the  control  of  the  power  that  controls  Egypt.  It  is  this  kind  of  con- 
trol, we  take  it.  that  America  intends  to  exercise.  What  we  suppose 
will  happen  is  something  of  this  kind :  Congress  will  refuse  to  vote 
money  to  be  used  anywhere  except  in  United  States  territory,  and 
accordingly  a  narrow  strip  of  land  on  each  side  of  the  proposed 


b  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL. 

waterway  will  be  granted  by  Nicaragua  and  Costa  Rica.  If  this  is 
the  plan  ultimately  adopted  there  will,  of  course,  be  no  need  of  a 
protectorate  treaty  with  Nicaragua.  The  canal  will  be  made  in 
United  States  territory. 

We  come  now  to  the  practical  side  of  the  question.  What  answer 
are  we  to  make  to  America  if,  or  rather  when,  she  asks  us  to  agree 
to  the  abrogation  of  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty?  It  has  been  sug- 
gested that  we  should  ask  for  compensation  elsewhere  or  try  to  make 
a  bargain  for  trade  facilities.  Possibly  the  plan  might  succeed,  but 
we  confess  we  dislike  such  huckstering  between  nations,  especially 
when  they  involve  demands  upon  a  nation's  internal  fiscal  policy. 
We  hold  that  it  would  not  only  be  more  dignified,  but  also  more 
beneficial  to  us  in  the  long  run,  to  ask  for  no  payment  for  giving 
up  what  has  as  a  matter  of  fact  proved  merely  a  sort  of  double- 
barreled  agreement  by  England  and  America  to  play  dog  in  the 
manger  to  each  other.  We  would  rather  abrogate  the  treaty  out  of 
good  will  and  good  feeling  than  for  any  direct  quid  pro  quo.  Let 
us  show  the  world  that,  though  in  the  case  of  foreigners  we  shall  be 
tenacious  of  our  treaty  rights  to  the  last  iota,  we  can  in  the  case  of 
our  own  kith  and  kin  think  of  their  interests  and  wishes  as  well  as 
of  our  own.  The  only  conditions  which  we  would  make  should  con- 
cern the  canal  itself.  We  would  abrogate  the  treaty  on  the  following 
terms : 

(1)  That  within  the  next  10  years  the  United  States  should  make 
or  obtain  the  making  of  an  interoceanic  canal;  (2)  that  she  and  no 
other  power  should  exercise  control  over  the  waterway  and  banks 
of  the  canal;  (3)  that  if  the  United  States  ever  abandoned  her  power 
of  control  it  should  be  offered  first  to  Great  Britain;  (4)  that  the 
canal  should  be  open  at  all  times  to  all  nations  at  peace  with  the 
United  States:  (5)  that  the  dues  charged  should  be  the  same  in  the 
case  of  American  and  other  vessels.  If  the  United  States  were  to 
agree,  as  they  believe  they  would,  to  such  terms  as  these  we  could 
have  no  possible  ground  for  refusing  to  give  up  our  rights  under  the 
Clayton-Bulwer  treaty.  That  treaty  was,  no  doubt,  sincerely  meant 
on  both  sides  to  be  an  act  of  friendship.  It  has  turned  out  to  be  at 
the  best  an  instrument  of  mortmain ;  at  the  worst,  a  troublesome  cause 
of  friction;  and  it  should,  therefore,  be  got  rid  of. 

The  "  force  of  circumstances  "  is  often  the  most  ironical  of  god- 
desses, but  sometimes  she  brings  about  things  which  are  curiously 
fitting  and  appropriate.  When  one-half  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  race 
holds  the  waterway  between  the  Mediterranean  and  the  Indian 
Ocean,  what  could  be  more  appropriate  than  that  the  other  half 
should  hold  that  between  the  Atlantic  and  Pacific  ?  When  the  Ameri- 
cans hold  Lake  Nicaragua  as  we  held  Lake  Timsah  the  wheel  will 
have  come  full  circle.  It  is  not  for  us  to  delay  but  to  hasten  that 
auspicious  hour. 

Mr.  Hay  to  Mr.  Choate. 

No.  51 8."|  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  December  22, 1900. 
Sir:  I  have  to  inform  you  that  the  Senate  by  its  resolution  of 
December  20,  1900,  has  given  its  advice  and  consent  to  the  ratifica- 
tion of  the  convention  signed  at  Washington  on  February  5,  1900,  by 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  7 

the  respective  plenipotentiaries  of  the  United  States  and  Great 
Britain,  to  facilitate  the  construction  of  a  ship  canal  to  connect  the 
Atlantic  and  Pacific  Oceans  and  to  remove  any  obstacle  which  might 
arise  out  of  the  convention  commonly  called  the  Clayton-Bulwer 
treaty,  with  the  following  amendments: 

1.  After  the  words  "  Clayton-Bulwer  convention  "  and  before  the 
word  "  adopt,"  in  the  preamble  of  Article  II,  the  words  "  which 
convention  is  hereby  superseded  "  are  inserted. 

2.  A  new  paragraph  is  added  to  the  end  of  section  5  of  Article  II, 
in  the  following  language: 

'  It  is  agreed,  however,  that  none  of  the  immediately  foregoing  conditions  and 
stipulations  in  sections  numbered  one,  two,  three,  four,  and  five  of  this  article 
shall  apply  to  measures  which  the  United  States  may  find  it  necessary  to  take 
for  securing  by  its  own  forces  the  defense  of  the  United  States  and  the  main- 
tenance of  public  order. 

3.  Article  III,  reading — 

The  high  contracting  parties  will,  immediately  upon  the  exchange  of  the  ratifi- 
cations of  this  convention,  bring  it  to  the  notice  of  the  other  powers  and  invite 
them  to  adhere  to  it — 

is  stricken  out. 

4.  Article  IV  is  made  Article  III. 

I  inclose  a  printed  copy  of  the  convention  as  signed  and  a  type- 
written copy  of  it  showing  its  reading  as  amended  by  the  Senate. 

You  will  bring  the  amendments  to  the  notice  of  the  British  Gov- 
ernment, and  express  the  hope  that  they  will  be  found  acceptable  to  it. 

You  may  at  the  same  time  state  that  the  supplementary  convention 
which  I  signed  with  Lord  Pauncefote  May  5  last,  prolonging  the 
time  within  which  the  ratifications  of  the  convention  of  February  5, 
1900,  shall  be  exchanged,  for  a  period  of  seven  months  from  August 
5,  1900,  has  been  consented  to  by  the  Senate  without  amendment. 
I  am,  sir,  etc., 

John  Hay. 

Mr.  Hay  to  Lord  Pauncefote. 

No.  2013.]  Department  of  State. 

Washington,  December  22,  1900. 
Excellency:  I  have  the  honor  to  inform  you  that  the  Senate,  by 
its  resolution  of  December  20,  1900.  has  given  its  advice  and  consent 
to  the  ratification  of  the  convention  signed  at  Washington  on  Feb- 
ruary 5,  1900,  by  the  respective  plenipotentiaries  of  the  United  States 
and  Great  Britain,  to  facilitate  the  construction  of  a  ship  canal  to 
connect  the  Atlantic  and  Pacific  Oceans  and  to  remove  any  objec- 
tion which  might  arise  out  of  the  convention  commonly  called  the 
Clayton-Bulwer  treaty,  with  the  following  amendments: 

1.  After  the  words  "  Clayton-Bulwer  convention  ':  and  before  the 
word  "  adopt,"  in  the  preamble  of  Article  II,  the  words  "  which  con- 
vention is  hereby  superseded  "  are  inserted. 

2.  A  new  paragraph  is  added  to  the  end  of  section  5  of  Article  II, 
in  the  following  language: 

It  is  agreed,  however,  that  none  of  the  immediately  foregoing  conditions  and 
stipulations  in  sections  numbered  one,  two.  three,  four,  and  five  of  this  article 
shall  apply  to  measures  which  the  United  States  may  find  it  necessary  to  take 
for  securing  by  its  own  forces  the  defense  of  the  United  Slates  and  the  mainte- 
nance of  public  order. 


b  DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

3.  Article  III,  reading — 

The  high  contracting  parties  will,  immediately  upon  the  exchange  of  the  rati- 
fications of  this  convention,  bring  it  to  the  notice  of  the  other  powers  and  invite 
them  to  adhere  to  it — 

is  stricken  out. 

4.  Article  IV  is  made  Article  III. 

I  inclose  a  printed  copy  of  the  convention  as  signed  and  a  type- 
written copy  of  it  showing  its  reading  as  amended  by  the  Senate. 

I  have  instructed  Mr.  Choate  to  express  to  the  Marquis  of  Lans- 
downe  this  Government's  hope  that  the  amendments  will  be  found 
acceptable  to  that  of  Her  Majesty. 

The  supplementary  convention  which  I  signed  with  you  on  May 
5  last,  prolonging  the  time  within  which  the  ratifications  of  the 
convention  of  February  5,  1900,  shall  be  exchanged,  for  a  period  of 
seven  months,  from  August  5,  1900,  has  been  consented  to  by  the 
Senate  without  amendment. 
I  have,  etc., 

John  Hay. 

Lord  Pauncefote  to  Mr.  Hay. 

No.  379.]  British  Embassy, 

Washington,  December  26,  1900. 

Sir  :  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  note  No. 
2013  of  the  22d  instant,  apprising  me  for  the  information  of  my 
Government  that  the  United  States  Senate,  by  its  resolution  of  De- 
cember 20,  has  given  its  advice  and  consent  to  the  ratification  with 
certain  amendments  of  the  convention  signed  at  Washington  on 
February  5  last  by  the  plenipotentiaries  of  Great  Britain  and  the 
United  States  to  facilitate  the  construction  of  a  ship  canal  to  connect 
the  Atlantic  and  Pacific  Oceans,  and  to  remove  any  objections  which 
might  arise  out  of  the  convention  commonly  called  the  "  Clayton- 
Bulwer  treaty";  and  inclosing  copies  of  the  treaty  as  originally 
signed  and  as  amended. 

I  have  the  honor  to  express  to  you  my  thanks  for  this  communica- 
tion, a  copy  of  which,  with  its  inclosures,  I  forwarded  by  yesterday's 
mail  to  Her  Majesty's  principal  secretary  of  state  for  foreign  affairs. 
I  have,  etc., 

Pauncefote. 


Mr.  Hay  to  Mr.  Choate. 

[Telegram.]1 

Confidential.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  December  29,  1900. 

The  British  press  and  a  portion  of  ours  seem  to  think  the  prohibi- 
tion fortification  was  stricken  out  of  the  treaty.  This  is  altogether 
erroneous.  The  clause  forbidding  fortification  remains  intact,  as 
well  as  the  provisions  for  neutrality. 

Hay. 

1  This  refers  to  the  first  convention,  which  was  amended  by  the  Senate  and  never 
ratified. 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  \) 

Mr.  Ghoate  to  Mr.  Hay. 

[Telegram.] 

American  Embassy, 
London,  January  11,  1901. 
Have  seen  Lord  Lansdowne,  and  told  him  I  was  instructed  not  to 
press  further  proposals  regarding  indemnity  and  commercial  treaties. 
He  fully  concurs  with  you  as  to  danger  from  delay  and  in  desire  to 
conclude  negotiations.  I  communicated  to  him  on  the  4th  Senate's 
amendments  to  Nicaraguan  treaty;  expressed  hope  that  they  would 
be  found  acceptable,  and,  in  furtherance  of  that  hope,  asked  that 
when  ready  to  take  them  up  for  consideration  he  would  give  me  an 
opportunity  to  confer  with  him  fully.  He  has  named  Monday  next 
for  that  purpose.    Have  you  any  further  suggestions  ? 

Choate. 

Mr.  Ghoate  to  Mr.  Hay. 

No.  479.]  American  Embassy, 

London,  January  12, 1901. 

Sir:  With  reference  to  your  instruction  No.  518,  dated  the  22d 
ultimo,  relating  to  the  Nicaragua  canal  treaty,  I  have  the  honor  to 
inclose  herewith  a  copy  of  my  note  to  Lord  Lansdowne,  dated  the 
4th  instant,  and  also  a  translation  of  my  cipher  telegram  to  you, 
dated  the  11th  instant. 

A  copy  of  my  note  to  Lord  Lansdowne  should  have  gone  with  last 
Wednesday's  dispatch  bag  but  was  inadvertently  omitted. 
I  have,  etc., 

Joseph  H.  Choate. 

[Inclosure  to  No.  479.] 

Mr.  Ghoate  to  Lord  Lansdotone. 

American  Embassy, 

London,  January  1^,  1901. 
My  Ix)ro  :  I  have  the  honor  to  bring  to  your  lordship's  attention 
the  fact  that  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  has  given  its  advice  and 
consent  to  the  ratification  of  the  convention  signed  at  Washington 
on  the  5th  of  February,  1900,  by  the  respective  plenipotentiaries  of 
the  United  States  and  Great  Britain,  to  facilitate  the  construction 
of  a  ship  canal  between  the  Atlantic  and  Pacific  Oceans,  and  to  re- 
move any  obstacle  which  might  arise  out  of  the  convention,  commonly 
called  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty,  with  the  following  amendments. 
viz: 

1.  After  the  words  "  Clayton-Bulwer  convention  "  and  before  the 
word  "  adopt,"  in  the  preamble  of  Article  II,  the  words  "  which  con- 
vention is  hereby  superseded  "  are  inserted. 

2.  A  new  paragraph  is  added  to  the  end  of  section  5  of  Article  II, 
in  the  following  language : 

It  is  agreed,  however,  that  none  of  the  immediately  foregoing  conditions  and 
stipulations  in  sections  numbered  one.  two.  three,  four,  and  five  of  this  article 


10  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE   PANAMA    CANAL. 

shall  apply  to  measures  which  the  United  States  may  find  it  necessary  to  take 
for  securing  by  its  own  forces  the  defense  of  the  United  States  and  the  main- 
tenance of  public  order. 

3.  Article  III,  reading — 

The  high  contracting  parties  will,  immediately  upon  the  exchange  of  the 
ratifications  of  this  convention,  bring  it  to  the  notice  of  the  other  powers  and 
invite  them  to  adhere  to  it — 

is  stricken  out. 

4.  Article  IV  is  made  Article  III. 

In  bringing  these  amendments  to  the  attention  of  Her  Majesty's 
Government,  I  am  instructed  to  express  the  hope  that  they  will  be 
found  acceptable  to  them ;  and,  in  furtherance  of  that  hope,  I  should 
be  greatly  obliged  if  your  lordship,  when  ready  to  take  up  the  matter 
for  consideration,  will  give  me  -an  opportunity  to  confer  with  vou 

I  inclose  typewritten  copies  of  the  convention  as  signed,  and  also 
as  amended  by  the  Senate. 

I  am  also  instructed  to  inform  jTmr  lordship  that  the  supplementary 
convention,  which  was  signed  by  the  Secretary  of  State  and  Her 
Majesty's  ambassador  at  Washington,  on  the  5th  of  May  last,  pro- 
longing the  time  within  which  the  ratification  of  the  convention  of 
February  5,  1900,  shall  be  exchanged  for  a  period  of  seven  months, 
from  August  5,  1900,  has  been  consented  to  by  the  Senate  without 
amendment. 

I  have,  etc.. 

Joseph  H.  Choate. 


Mr.  Hay  to  Mr.  Choate. 

Department  or  State, 
Washington,  January  25,  1901. 
My  Dear  Mr.  Choate:  This  being  mail  day  and  Cabinet  day,  I 
have  only  one  instant,  not  to  answer,  but  to  acknowledge  your  letter 
of  the  15th  of  January,1  which  I  have  read  with  the  greatest  interest, 
and  I  need  not  say  with  the  fullest  approval  of  the  admirable  way  in 
which  you  presented  the  matter  to  Lord  Lansdowne.  It  could  not 
have  been  better  done,  though  that  is  a  matter  of  course  about  every- 
thing you  do. 

I  am  extremely  anxious  that  the  British  Government  may  see  their 
way  clear  to  accepting  the  treaty  as  amended,  for  reasons  which  I 
have  already  mentioned  to  you.     We  should  have  the  greatest  diffi- 
culty in  getting  any  new  or  modified  arrangement  through  the  Senate. 
Yours,  faithfully, 

John  Hay. 


Mr.  Hay  to  Mr.  Choate. 

[Telegram.] 

Department  of  State, 
Washington,  February  16,  1901. 
I  take  it  for  granted  you  and  Lord  Lansdowne  have  not  overlooked 
the  fact  that  the  canal  convention  expires  by  limitation  unless  rati- 

1  Not  on  State  Department  files. 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA   CANAL.  11 

fied  by  the  5th  of  March,  and  failure  to  act  promptly  is  now  equiva- 
lent to  a  rejection  of  the  amended  treaty.  I  have  conversed  seriously 
with  Lord  Pauncefote.  He  seems  to  share  my  opinion,  and  has 
doubtless  communicated  his  point  of  view  to  the  foreign  office.  You 
have  so  admirably  stated  the  case  to  Lord  Lansdowne  in  former  inter- 
views that  T  have  no  additional  suggestions  to  make. 

Hay. 


Mr.  Choate  to  Mr.  Hay. 

[Telegram.] 

Confidential.]  American  Embassy, 

London,  February  19.  1901. 
Interview  with  the  minister  for  foreign  affairs  to-day  as  to  canal 
treaty.  Last  week  when  he  said  he  was  not  yet  ready  to  talk  I  asked 
him  if  he  bore  in  mind  that  unless  something  was  done  before  the  4th 
of  March  the  treaty  would  then  fall  through  by  its  own  limitation. 
He  said  he  was  well  aware  of  that.  To-day  he  was  still  not  ready 
to  talk  yet,  and  was  quite  unwilling  to  be  pressed  or  to  discuss  the 
matter,  but  he  said  he  expected  to  be  ready  in  a  few  days  to  speak  of 
it.  Cabinet  meeting  next  Friday,  after  which  he  hoped  to  be  more 
free  to  talk.  Do  not  think  he  means  to  let  time  run  out  without  doing 
anything. 

Choate. 


The  Marquis  of  Lansdowne  to  Lord  Pauncefote. 
[Handed  to  the  Secretary  of  State  by  the  British  ambassador.] 

Foreign  Office,  February  22. 1901. 

My  Lord:  The  American  ambassador  has  formally  comunicated 
to  me  the  amendments  introduced  by  the  Senate  of  the  United  States 
into  the  convention,  signed  at  Washington  in  February  last,  to  facili- 
tate the  construction  of  a  ship  canal  to  connect  the  Atlantic  and 
Pacific  Oceans. 

These  amendments  are  three  in  number,  namely : 

1.  The  insertion  in  Article  II,  after  the  reference  to  Article  VIII, 
of  the  Clayton-Bulwer  convention,  of  the  words  "  which  convention 
is  hereby  superseded." 

2.  The  addition  of  a  new  paragraph  after  section  5  of  Article  II  in 
the  following  terms : 

It  is  agreed,  however,  that  none  of  the  immediately  foregoing  conditions  and 
stipulations  in  sections  numbered  1,  2,  3,  4,  and  5  of  this  article  shall  apply  to 
measures  which  the  United  States  may  find  it  necessary  to  take  for  securing  by 
its  own  forces  the  defense  of  the  United  States  and  the  maintenance  of  public 
order. 

3.  The  excision  of  Article  III,  which  provides  that — 

The  high  contracting  parties  will,  immediately  upon  the  exchange  of  the  rati- 
fications of  this  convention,  bring  it  to  the  notice  of  other  powers  and  invite 
them  to  adhere  to  it. 

Mr.  Choate  was  instructed  to  express  the  hope  that  the  amend- 
ments would  be  found  acceptable  by  Her  Majesty's  Government. 


12  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

It  is  our  duty  to  consider  them  as  they  stand,  and  to  inform  your 
excellency  of  the  manner  in  which,  as  the  subject  is  now  presented  to 
us,  we  are  disposed  to  regard  them. 

It  will  be  useful,  in  the  first  place,  to  recall  the  circumstances  in 
which  negotiations  for  the  conclusion  of  an  agreement  supplementary 
to  the  convention  of  1850,  commonly  called  the  Clayton-Bulwer 
treaty,  were  initiated. 

So  far  as  Her  Majesty's  Government  were  concerned,  there  was  no 
desire  to  procure  a  modification  of  that  convention.  Some  of  its  pro- 
visions had.  however,  for  a  long  time  past  been  regarded  with  dis- 
favor by  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  and  in  the  President's 
message  to  Congress  of  December,  1898,  it  was  suggested,  with  refer- 
ence to  a  concession  granted  by  the  Government  of  Nicaragua,  that 
some  definite  action  by  Congress  was  urgently  required  if  the  labors 
of  the  past  were  to  be  utilized  and  the  linking  of  the  Atlantic  and 
Pacific  Oceans  by  a  practical  waterway  was  to  be  realized.  It  was 
further  urged  that  the  construction  of  such  a  maritime  highway  was 
more  than  ever  indispensable  to  that  intimate  and  ready  intercom- 
munication between  the  eastern  and  western  seaboards  of  the  United 
States  demanded  by  the  annexation  of  the  Hawaiian  Islands  and  the 
prospective  expansion  of  American  influence  and  commerce  in  the 
Pacific,  and  that  the  national  policy  called  more  imperatively  than 
ever  for  the  bi  control  "  of  the  projected  highway  by  the  Government 
of  the  United  States. 

This  passage  in  the  message  having  excited  comment,  your  excel- 
lency made  inquiries  of  the  Secretary  of  State  in  order  to  elicit  some 
information  as  to  the  attitude  of  the  President.  In  reply,  the  views 
of  the  United  States  Government  were  very  frankly  and  openly 
explained.  You  were  also  most  emphatically  assured  that  the  Presi- 
dent had  no  intention  whatever  of  ignoring  the  Clayton-Bulwer  con- 
vention, and  that  he  would  loyally  observe  treaty  stipulations. 
But  in  view  of  the  strong  national  feeling  in  favor  of  the  construc- 
tion, of  the  Nicaragua  Canal  and  of  the  improbability  of  the  work 
being  accomplished  by  private  enterprise,  the  United  States  Gov- 
ernment were  prepared  to  undertake  it  themselves  upon  obtaining 
the  necessary  powers  from  Congress.  For  that  purpose,  however, 
they  must  endeavor,  by  friendly  negotiation,  to  obtain  the  consent 
of  Great  Britain  to  such  a  modification  of  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty 
as  would,  without  affecting  the  "general  principle  "  therein  declared, 
enable  the  great  object  in  view  to  be  accomplished  for  the  benefit 
of  the  commerce  of  the  world.  Although  the  time  had  hardly  arrived 
for  the  institution  of  formal  negotiations  to  that  end.  Congress  not 
having  vet  legislated,  the  United  States  Government,  nevertheless, 
were  most  anxious  that  your  excellency  should  enter  at  once  into 
pourparler-  with  a  view  to  preparing,  for  consideration,  a  scheme 
of  arrangement. 

Her  Majesty''-  Government  agreed  to  this  proposal,  and  the  dis- 
cussions which  took  place  in  consequence  resulted  in  the  draft 
convention  which  Mr.  Hay  handed  to  your  excellency  on  the  11th 
January.  1899. 

At  that  time  the  joint  high  commission  over  which  the  late  Lord 
Herschell  presided  was  still  sitting.  That  commission  was  appointed 
in  July.  1898.  to  discuss  various  questions  at  issue  between  Great 
Britain    and    the    United    States,    namely,   the   fur-seal   fishery,   the 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA    CANAL.  13 

fisheries  off  the  Atlantic  and  Pacific  coasts,  the  Alaskan  boundary, 
alien-labor  laws,  reciprocity,  transit  of  merchandise,  mining  rights, 
naval  vessels  on  the  Great  Lakes,  definition  and  marking  of  frontiers, 
and  conveyance  of  persons  in  custody.  But  serious  difficulties  had 
arisen  in  the  attempt  to  arrive  at  an  understanding,  and  it  had 
become  doubtful  whether  any  settlement  would  be  effected. 

In  reply,  therefore,  to  a  request  for  a  speedy  answer  with  regard  to 
the  convention,  the  Marquis  of  Salisbury  informed  Mr.  White,  the 
American  charge  d'affaires,  that  he  could  not  help  contrasting  the 
precarious  prospects  and  slowness  of  the  negotiations  which  were 
being  conducted  by  Lord  Herschell  with  the  rapidity  of  decision  pro- 
posed in  the  matter  of  the  convention.  Her  Majesty's  Government 
might  be  reproached  with  having  come  to  a  precipitate  agreement  on 
a  proposal  which  was  exclusively  favorable  to  the  United  States, 
while  they  had  come  to  no  agreement  at  all  on  the  controversy  where 
there  was  something  to  be  conceded  on  both  sides. 

Shortly  afterwards  Lord  Herschell  intimated  that  the  difficulties 
in  regard  to  the  question  of  the  Alaskan  boundary  seemed  insuper- 
able, and  that  he  feared  it  might  be  necessary  to  break  off  the  negotia- 
tions of  which  he  had  hitherto  had  the  charge.  Upon  this  Lord 
Salisbury  informed  Mr.  White  that  he  did  not  see  how  Her  Majesty's 
Government  could  sanction  any  convention  for  amending  the  Clayton- 
Bulwer  treaty,  as  the  opinion  of  this  country  would  hardly  support 
them  in  making  a  concession  which  would  be  wholly  to  the  benefit  of 
the  United  States,  at  a  time  when  they  appeared  to  be  so  little  in- 
clined to  come  to  a  satisfactory  settlement  in  regard  to  the  Alaskan 
frontier. 

•  The  last  meeting  of  the  joint  high  commission  took  place  on  the 
20th  February,  1899.  Except  for  the  establishment  of  a  modus 
vivendi  on  the  Alaskan  frontier,  no  progress  has  been  made  since  that 
date  toward  the  adjustment  of  any  of  the  questions  which  the  high 
commissioners  were  appointed  to  discuss. 

It  was  in  these  circumstances  that  the  proposal  for  a  canal  con- 
vention was  revived  at  the  beginning  of  last  year. 

On  the  21st  January  your  lordship  reported  that  a  bill,  originally 
introduced  in  1899,  had  been  laid  before  Congress,  empowering  the 
President  to  acquire  from  the  Republics  of  Costa  Pica  and  Nicaragua 
the  control  of  such  portion  of  territory  as  might  be  desirable  or  neces- 
sary, and  to  direct  the  Secretary  of  War,  when  such  control  had  been 
secured,  to  construct  the  canal  and  make  such  provisions  for  defense 
as  might  be  required  for  the  safety  and  protection  of  the  canal  and  the 
terminal  harbors. 

It  was  probable  that  the  bill  would  be  passed,  and  it  was  clear  that 
additional  embarrassment  would  be  caused  by  an  enactment  opposed 
to  the  terms  of  the  proposed  convention  and  in  direct  violation  of  the 
Clayton-Bulwer  treaty.  On  the  other  hand,  your  lordship's  informa- 
tion led  to  the  confident  expectation  that  the  convention  as  signed 
would,  if  agreed  to  by  Her  Majesty's  Government,  be  ratified  by  the 
Senate. 

In  these  circumstances  Her  Majesty's  Government  consented  to 
reopen  the  question,  and,  after  due  consideration,  determined  to 
accept  the  convention  unconditionally,  as  a  signal  proof  of  their 
friendly  disposition  and  of  their  desire  not  to  impede  the  execution 


14  DIPLOMATIC    HISTOEY    OF    THE    PANAMA   CANAL. 

of  a  project  declared  to  be  of  national  importance  to  the  people  of  the 
United  States. 

Your  excellency  stated  that  the  United  States  Government 
expressed  satisfaction  at  this  happy  result  and  appreciation  of  the 
conciliatory  disposition  shown  by  Her  Majesty's  Government. 

The  convention  was  forthwith  submitted  to  the  Senate  for  ratifi- 
cation, and  on  the  9th  March  the  committee  charged  with  its  exami- 
nation reported  in  favor  of  ratification,  with  the  insertion, 
subsequently  adopted,  after  section  5  of  Article  II,  of  a  paragraph 
containing  provision  that  the  rules  laid  down  in  the  preceding  sec- 
tions should  not  apply  to  measures  for  the  defense  of  the  United 
States  by  its  own  forces  and  the  maintenance  of  public  order.  This 
alteration  was  discussed  by  the  Senate  in  secret  session  on  the  5th 
April,  but  no  vote  was  taken  upon  it  nor  upon  the  direct  question  of 
ratification. 

The  bill  empowering  the  President  to  construct  and  provide  for 
the  defense  of  the  canal  passed  the  House  of  Kepresentatives  by  a 
large  majority  on  the  2d  of  May.  The  Senate,  however,  postponed 
consideration  of  the  bill,  although  favorably  reported  by  the  Com- 
mittee on  Interoceanic  Canals. 

After  the  recess,  during  which  the  presidential  election  took  place, 
the  discussion  was  resumed  in  the  Senate.  On  the  20th  of  December 
the  vote  was  taken,  and  resulted  in  the  ratification  of  the  convention 
with  the  three  amendments  which  have  been  presented  for  the 
acceptance  of  His  Majesty's  Government. 

The  first  of  these  amendments,  that  in  Article  II,  declares  the 
Clayton-Bulwer  treaty  to  be  "  hereby  superseded." 

Before  attempting  to  consider  the  manner  in  which  this  amend- 
ment will,  if  adopted,  affect  the  parties  to  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty, 
I  desire  to  call  your  excellency's  attention  to  a  question  of  principle 
which  is  involved  by  the  action  of  the  Senate  at  this  point. 

The  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty  is  an  international  contract  of  unques- 
tionable validity,  a  contract  which,  according  to  well-established 
international  usage,  ought  not  to  be  abrogated  or  modified,  save  with 
the  consent  of  both  the  parties  to  the  contract.  In  spite  of  this 
usage,  His  Majesty's  Government  find  themselves  confronted  by  a 
proposal  communicated  to  them  by  the  United  States  Government, 
without  any  previous  attempt  to  ascertain  their  views,  for  the  abro- 
gation of  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty. 

The  practical  effect  of  the  amendment  can  best  be  understood  by 
reference  to  the  inclosed  copy  of  the  articles  of  the  treaty,  Nos.  I 
and  VI,  which,  assuming  that  the  United  States  Government  would 
undertake  all  the  obligations  imposed  by  Article  IV  of  the  treaty, 
contain  the  only  provisions1  not  replaced  by  new  provisions  covering 
the  same  ground,  in  the  convention. 

Under  Article  I  of  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty  the  two  powers 
agreed  that  neither  would  occupy  or  fortify  or  colonize,  or  assume  or 
exercise  any  dominion  over  any  part  of  Central  America,  nor  attain 
any  of  the  foregoing  objects  by  protection  afforded  to  or  alliance 
with  any  State  or  people  of  Central  America.  There  is  no  similar 
agreement  in  the  convention.  If,  therefore,  the  treaty  were  wholly 
abrogated,  both  powers  would,  except  in  the  vicinity  of  the  canal, 

1  Printed  in  italics. 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTOBY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  15 

recover  entire  freedom  of  action  in  Central  America.  The  change 
would  certainly  be  of  advantage  to  the  United  States,  and  might  be 
of  substantial  importance. 

Under  the  other  surviving  portion  of  the  treaty  (part  of  Article 
VI)  provision  is  made  for  treaties  with  the  Central  American  States 
in  furtherance  of  the  object  of  the  two  powers  and  for  the  exercise  of 
good  offices  should  differences  arise  as  to  the  territory  through  which 
the  canal  will  pass.  In  this  case  abrogation  would,  perhaps,  signify 
but  little  to  this  country.  There  is  nothing  in  the  convention  to 
prevent  Great  Britain  from  entering  into  communication,  or  exercis- 
ing good  offices,  with  the  Central  American  States,  should  difficulties 
hereafter  arise  between  them  and  the  United  States. 

The  other  two  amendments  present  more  formidable  difficulties. 

The  first  of  them,  which  reserves  to  the  United  States  the  right  of 
taking  any  measures  which  it  may  find  necessary  to  secure  by  its  own 
forces  the  defense  of  the  United  States,  appears  to  His  Majesty's 
Government  to  involve  a  distinct  departure  from  the  principle  which 
has  until  now  found  acceptance  with  both  Governments — the  prin- 
ciple, namely,  that  in  time  of  war  as  well  as  in  time  of  peace  the  pas- 
sage of  the  canal  is  to  remain  free  and  unimpeded,  and  is  to  be  so 
maintained  by  the  power  or  powers  responsible  for  its  control. 

Were  this  amendment  added  to  the  convention  the  United  States 
would,  it  is  presumed,  be  within  their  rights,  if  at  any  moment  when 
it  seemed  to  them  that  their  safety  required  it,  in  view  of  warlike 
preparations  not  yet  commenced,  but  contemplated  or  supposed 
to  be  contemplated  by  another  power,  they  resorted  to  warlike  acts 
in  or  near  the  canal — acts  clearly  inconsistent  with  the  neutral  char- 
acter which  it  has  always  been  sought  to  give  it,  and  which  would 
deny  the  free  use  of  it  to  the  commerce  and  navies  of  the  world. 

It  appears  from  the  report  of  the  Senate  committee  that  the  pro- 
posed addition  to  Article  II  was  adopted  from  Article  X  of  the  Suez 
Canal  convention,  which  runs  as  follows : 

Similarly,  the  provisions  of  Articles  IV,  V,  VII,  and  VIII.1  shall  not  interfere 
with  the  measures  which  His  Majesty  the  Sultan  and  His  Highness  the  Khedive, 
in  the  name  of  His  Imperial  Majesty,  and  within  the  limits  of  the  firmans 
granted,  might  find  it  necessary  to  take  for  securing  by  their  own  forces  the 
defense  of  Egypt  and  the  maintenance  of  public  order. 

In  case  His  Imperial  Majesty  the  Sultan,  or  His  Highness  the  Khedive,  should 
find  it  necessary  to  avail  themselves  of  the  exceptions  for  which  this  article 
provides,  the  signatory  powers  of  the  declaration  of  London  shall  be  notified 
thereof  by  the  Imperial  Ottoman  Government. 

It  is  likewise  understood  that  the  provisions  of  the  four  articles  aforesaid  shall 
in  no  case  occasion  any  obstacle  to  the  measures  which  the  Imperial  Ottoman 
Government  may  think  it  necessary  to  take  in  order  to  insure  by  its  own  forces 
the  defense  of  its  other  possessions  situated  on  the  eastern  coast  of  the  Ked 
Sea. 

It  is,  I  understand,  contended  in  support  of  the  Senate  amendment 
that  the  existence  of  the  above  provisions  in  the  Suez  Canal  conven- 

1  Article  IV  guarantees  that  the  Maritime  Canal  shall  remain  open  in  time  of  war  as  a 
free,  passage  even  to  the  ships  of  war  of  belligerents,  and  regulates  the  revictualing, 
transit,  and  detention  of  such  vessels  in  the  canal. 

Article  V  regulates  the  embarkation  and  disembarkation  of  troops,  munitions  or  mate'- 
riels  of  war  by  belligerent  powers  in  time  of  war. 

Article  VII  prohibits  the  powers  from  keeping  any  vessel  of  war  in  the  waters  of  the 
canal. 

Article  VIII  imposes  on  the  agents  of  the  signatory  powers  in  Egypt  the  duty  of 
watching  over  the  execution  of  the  treaty  and  taking  measures  to  secure  the  free  passage 
of  the  canal. 


16  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL. 

tion  justifies  the  demand  now  made  for  the  insertion  of  analogous 
provisions  in  regard  to  the  proposed  Nicaragua  Canal. 

But  the  analogy  which  it  has  attempted  to  set  up  fails  in  one 
essential  particular.  The  banks  of  the  Suez  Canal  are  within  the 
dominions  of  a  territorial  sovereign,  who  was  a  party  to  the  conven- 
tion, and  whose  established  interests  it  was  necessary  to  protect, 
whereas  the  Nicaragua  Canal  will  be  constructed  in  territory  belong- 
ing not  to  the  United  States,  but  to  Central  American  States,  of  whose 
sovereign  rights  other  powers  can  not  claim  to  dispose. 

Moreover,  it  seems  to  have  escaped  attention  that  Article  X  of  the 
Suez  Canal  convention  receives  most  important  modification  from 
Article  XI,  which  lays  down  that  "  the  measures  which  shall  be  taken 
in  the  cases  provided  for  by  Articles  IX  and  X  of  the  present  treaty 
shall  not  interfere  with  the  free  use  of  the  canal."  The  article  pro- 
ceeds to  say  that  "  in  the  same  cases,  the  erection  of  permanent  forti- 
fications contrary  to  the  provisions  of  Article  VIII  is  prohibited." 

The  last  paragraph  of  Article  VIII,  which  is  specially  alluded  to, 
runs  as  follows: 

They  [i.  e.,  the  agents  of  the  signatory  powers  in  Egypt]  shall  especially 
demand  the  suppression  of  any  work  or  the  dispersion  of  any  assemblage  on 
either  bank  of  the  canal,  the  object  or  effect  of  which  might  be  to  interfere  with 
the  liberty  and  the  entire  security  of  the  navigation. 

The  situation  which  would  be  created  by  the  addition  of  the  new 
clause  is  deserving  of  serious  attention.  If  it  were  to  be  added,  the 
obligation  to  respect  the  neutrality  of  the  canal  in  all  circumstances 
would,  so  far  as  Great  Britain  is  concerned,  remain  in  force;  the 
obligation  of  the  United  States,  on  the  other  hand,  would  be  essen- 
tially modified.  The  result  would  be  a  one-sided  arrangement  under 
which  Great  Britain  would  be  debarred  from  any  warlike  action  in  or 
around  the  canal,  while  the  United  States  would  be  able  to  resort  to 
such  action  to  whatever  extent  they  might  deem  necessary  to  secure 
their  own  safety. 

It  may  be  contended  that  if  the  new  clause  were  adopted,  section 
7  of  article  2,  which  prohibits  the  erection  of  fortifications,  would 
sufficiently  insure  the  free  use  of  the  canal.  This  contention  is, 
however,  one  which  His  Majesty's  Government  are  quite  unable  to 
admit.  I  will  not  insist  upon  the  dangerous  vagueness  of  the  lan- 
guage employed  in  the  amendment,  or  upon  the  absence  of  all  security 
as  to  the  manner  in  which  the  words  might,  as  some  future  time,  be 
interpreted.  For  even  if  it  were  more  precisely  worded,  it  would  be 
impossible  to  determine  what  might  be  the  effect  if  one  clause  per- 
mitting defensive  measures  and  another  forbidding  fortifications 
were  allowed  to  stand  side  by  side  in  the  convention.  To  His  Majesty's 
Government  it  seems,  as  I  have  already  said,  that  the  amendment 
might  be  construed  as  leaving  it  open  to  the  United  States  at  any 
moment,  not  only  if  war  existed,  but  even  if  it  were  anticipated,  to 
take  any  measures,  however  stringent  or  far-reaching,  which,  in  their 
own  judgment,  might  be  represented  as  suitable  for  the  purpose  of 
protecting  their  national  interests.  Such  an  enactment  would  strike 
at  the  very  root  of  that  "general  principle"  of  neutralization  upon 
which  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty  was  based,  and  which  was  reaffirmed 
in  the  convention  as- drafted. 

But  the  import  of  the  amendment  stands  out  in  stronger  relief 
when  the  third  proposal  is  considered.     This  strikes  out  article  3 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  17 

of  the  convention,  under  which  the  high  contracting  parties  engaged, 
immediately  upon  the  convention  being  ratified,  to  bring  it  to  the 
notice  of  other  powers  and  to  invite  their  adherence.  If  that  adher- 
ence were  given,  the  neutrality  of  the  canal  would  be  secured  by  the 
whole  of  the  adhering  powers.  Without  that  adherence  it  would 
depend  only  upon  the  guaranty  of  the  two  contracting  powers.  The 
amendment,  however,  not  only  removes  all  prospect  of  the  wider 
guaranty,  but  places  this  country  in  a  position  of  marked  disadvan- 
tage, compared  with  other  powers  which  would  not  be  subject  to  the 
self-denying  ordinance  which  Great  Britain  is  desired  to  accept.  It 
would  follow,  were  His  Majesty's  Government  to  agree  to  such  an 
arrangement,  that  while  the  United  States  would  have  a  treaty  right 
to  interfere  with  the  canal  in  time  of  war,  or  apprehended  war,  and 
while  other  powers  could  with  a  clear  conscience  disregard  any  of  the 
restrictions  imposed  by  the  convention,  Great  Britain  alone,  in  spite 
of  her  enormous  possessions  on  the  American  continent,  in  spite  of 
the  extent  of  her  Australasian  colonies  and  her  interests  in  the  East, 
would  be  absolutely  precluded  from  resorting  to  any  such  action,  or 
from  taking  measures  to  secure  her  interests  in  and  near  the  canal. 

I  request  that  your  excellency  will  explain  to  the  Secretary*of  State 
the  reasons,  as  set  forth  in  this  dispatch,  why  His  Majesty's  Govern- 
ment feel  unable  to  accept  the  convention  in  the  shape  presented  to 
them  by  the  American  ambassador,  and  why  they  prefer,  as  matters 
stand  at  present,  to  retain  unmodified  the  provisions  of  the  Clayton- 
Bulwer  treaty.  His  Majesty's  Government  have,  thoughout  these 
negotiations,  given  evidence  of  their  earnest  desire  to  meet  the  views 
of  the  United  States.  They  would  on  this  occasion  have  been  ready 
to  consider  in  a  friendly  spirit  any  amendments  of  the  convention, 
not  inconsistent  with  the  principles  accepted  by  both  Governments, 
which  the  Government  of  the  United  States  might  have  desired  to 
propose,  and  they  would  sincerely  regret  a  failure  to  come  to  an 
amicable  understanding  in  regard  to  this  important  subject. 

Your  lordship  is  authorized  to  read  this  dispatch  to  the  Secretary 
of  State  and  to  leave  a  copy  in  his  hands. 

I  am,  etc.,  Lansdowne. 


[Inclosure.] 

Articles  I  and  VI  of  convention  between  Her  Majesty  and  the  United 
States  of  America  relative  to  the  establishment  of  a  communication 
bv  ship  canal  between  the  Atlantic  and  Pacific  Oceans,  signed  at 
Washington,  April  19,  1850 : 

Article  I. 

The  Governments  of  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States  hereby 
declare  that  neither  the  one  nor  the  other  will  ever  obtain  or  maintain 
for  itself  any  exclusive  control  over  the  said  ship  canal ;  agreeing  that 
neither  will  ever  erect  or  maintain  any  fortifications  commanding  the 
same,  or  in  the  vicinity  thereof,  or  occupy,  or  fortify,  or  colonize,  or 
assume^  or  exercise  any  dominion  over  Nicaragua,  Costa  Rica,  the 
Mosquito  Coast,  or  any  part  of  Central  America;  nor  will  either 

42112— S.  Doc.  474,  63-2 2 


18  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

make  use  of  any  prott  ction  which  either  affords,  or  may  afford,  or 
any  alliance  which  either  has,  or  may  have,  to  or  with  any  State  or 
people,  for  the  purpose  of  erecting  or  maintaining  any  such  fortifi- 
cations, or  of  occupying,  fortifying,  or  colonizing  Nicaragua,  Costa 
Rica,  the  Mosquito  Coast,  or  any  part  of  Central  America,  or  of  as- 
suming or  exercising  dominion  over  the  same.  Nor  will  Great 
Britain  or  the  United  States  take  advantage  of  any  intimacy,  or  use 
any  alliance,  connection,  or  influence  that  either  may  possess  with 
any  State  or  Government  through  whose  territory  the  said  canal 
may  pass  for  the  purpose  of  acquiring  or  holding,  directly  or  indi- 
rectly, for  the  subjects  or  citizens  of  the  one,  any  rights  or  advan- 
tages in  regard  to  commerce  or  navigation  through  the  said  canal, 
which  shall  not  be  offered,  on  the  same  terms,  to  the  subjects  or 
citizens  of  the  other. 

Article  VI. 

The  contracting  parties  in  this  convention  engage  to  invite  every 
State  with  which  both  or  either  have  friendly  intercourse  to  enter 
into  stipulations  with  them  similar  to  those  which  they  have  entered 
into  with' each  other  to  the  end  that  all  other  States  may  share  in  the 
honor  and  advantage  of  having  contributed  to  a  work  of  such  general 
interest  and  importance  as  the  canal  herein  contemplated;  and  the 
contracting  parties  likewise  agree  that  each  shall  enter  into  treaty 
stipulations  with  such  of  the  Central  American  States  as  they  may 
deem  advisable,  for  the  purpose  of  more  effectually  carrying  out  the 
great  design  of  this  convention,  namely,  that  of  constructing  and 
maintaining  the  said  canal  as  a  ship  communication  between  the  two 
oceans  for  the  benefit  of  mankind,  on  equal  terms  to  all,  and  of  pro- 
tecting the  same;  and  they  also  agree  that  the  good  offices  of  either 
shall  be  employed,  when  requested  by  the  other,  in  aiding  and  assist- 
ing the  negotiation  of  such  treaty  stipulations;  and  should  any  dif- 
ferences arise  as  to  right  or  property  over  the  territory  through 
which  the  said  canal  shall  pass  between  the  States  or  Governments 
of  Central  America,  and  such  differences  should  in  any  way  impede 
or  obstruct  the  execution  of  the  said  canal,  the  Governments  of  Great 
Britain  and  the  United  States  will  use  their  good  offices  to  settle 
sa<h  differences  in  the  manner  best  suited  to  promote  the  interests 
of  the  said  canal,  and  to  strengthen  the  bonds  of  friendship  and 
alliance  which  exist  between  the  contracting  parties. 


Mr.  Hay  to  Mr.  Choate. 

[  Confidential — Telegram.  ] 

Department  of  State. 

Washington,  March  13, 1901. 
Lord  Lansdowne  answer  has  been  received.    Paragraph  beginning 
k<  no  indication  "  is  inadmissible.    We  have  protested  against  it,  and 
British  ambassador  is  in  correspondence  with  foreign  office.     Keep 
the  whole  matter  absolutely  confidential. 

Hay. 

(Cable  refers  to  Lord  Lansdowne's  note  to  Lord  Pauncefote  of 
February  22,  1901.) 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL.  19 

Mr.  Hay  to  Mr.  Choate. 

(Telegram.] 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  March  15, 1901. 
Paragraph  is  omitted  at  our  request.    Most  confidential. 

Hay. 


Mr.  Hay  to  Lord  Pauncefote. 

No.  2119.]  Department  of  State. 

Washington,  March  25, 1901. 

Excellency:  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  the 
instruction  of  Lord  Lansdowne  to  your  excellency  bearing  date  the 
22d  of  Februar}7  and  delivered  to  me  on  the  11th  of  March. 

As  the  convention  of  the  5th  of  February.  1900,  expired  by  limita- 
tion on  the  5th  of  this  month  in  default  of  ratification,  I  shall  not 
at  this  moment  enter  into  any  examination  of  the  considerations 
which  have  induced  His  Majesty's  Government  to  decline  to  accept 
the  convention  as  amended  by  the  Senate. 

Referring  to  the  passage  of  Lord  Lansdowne's  note  in  which  he 
says  His  Majesty's  Government  "  would  sincerely  regret  a  failure  to 
come  to  an  amicable  understanding  in  regard  to  this  important  sub- 
ject," I  have  the  honor  to  say  I  am  directed  by  the  President  to  seek 
an  early  opportunity  to  converse  with  your  excellency  in  regard  to 
a  possible  basis  of  agreement. 
I  have,  etc., 

John  Hay. 


Correspondence  Respecting  the  Treaty  Signed  at  Washington 
November  18.  1901.  Relative  to  the  Establishment  of  a  Com- 
munication by  Ship  Canal  between  the  Atlantic  and  Pacific 
Oceans. 

[Printed  in  British  Blue  Book.     "United  States,  1902,  No.  1."] 

No.  1. 

Lord  Pauncefote  to  the  Marquis  of  Lansdowne. 

Washington,  April  25,  1901. 
My  Lord:  Since  the  rejection  by  His  Majesty's  Government  of  the 
amendment-  introduced  by  the  Senate  in  the  Interoceanic  Canal 
Convention  of  the  5th  of  February,  1900.  Mr.  Hay  has  been  engaged 
in  framing  a  new  draft,  which,  as  I  understand,  he  has  drawn  up 
after  consultation  with  prominent  Senators,  and  which  he  trusts  will 
be  acceptable  to  His  Majesty's  Government. 

Mr.  Hay  has  handed  me  a  copy  of  the  draft,  which  I  have  the 
honor  to  forward  herewith  for  your  lordship's  consideration. 
I  have.  etc.. 

Pauncefote. 


20  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL. 

[Inclosure  No.  1.] 

Draft  of  convention  relative  to  the  construction  of  an  interoceanic 

canal. 

The  United  States  of  America  and  His  Majesty  the  King  of  the 
United  Kingdom  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland,  Emperor  of  India, 
being  desirous  to  facilitate  the  construction  of  a  ship  canal  to  con- 
nect the  Atlantic  and  Pacific  Oceans,  and  to  that  end  to  remove  any 
objection  which  may  arise  out  of  the  convention  of  the  19th  April, 
1850,  commonly  called  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty,  to  the  construction 
of  such  canal  under  the  auspices  of  the  Government  of  the  United 
States,  without  impairing  the  "  general  principle  "  of  neutralization 
established  in  Article  VIII  of  that  convention,  have  for  that  purpose 
appointed  as  their  plenipotentiaries: 

The  President  of  the  United  States,  John  Hay,  Secretary  of  State 
of  the  United  States  of  America ; 

And  His  Majesty  the  King  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland.  Emperor 
of  India,  the  Eight  Honorable  Lord  Pauncefote,  G.  C.  B.,  G.  C.  M.  G., 
His  Majest}T's  ambassador  extraordinary  and  plenipotentiary  to  the 
United  States; 

Who,  having  communicated  to  each  other  their  full  powers,  which 
were  found  to  be  in  due  and  proper  form,  have  agreed  upon  the 
following  articles: 

Article  I. 

The  high  contracting  parties  agree  that  the  present  convention 
shall  supersede  the  aforementioned  convention  of  the  19th  of  April, 
1850. 

Article  II. 

It  is  agreed  that  the  canal  may  be  constructed  under  the  auspices 
of  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  either  directly  at  its  own 
cost  or  by  gift  or  loan  of  money  to  individuals  or  corporations,  or 
through  subscription  to  or  purchase  of  stock  or  shares,  and  that, 
subject  to  the  provisions  of  the  present  convention,  the  said  Govern- 
ment shall  have  and  enjoy  all  the  rights  incident  to  such  construc- 
tion, as  well  as  the  exclusive  right  of  providing  for  the  regulation 
and  management  of  the  canal. 

Article  III. 

The  United  States  adopts  as  the  basis  of  the  neutralization  of  said 
ship  canal  the  following  rules,  substantially  as  embodied  in  the  con- 
vention of  Constantinople,  signed  the  28th  October,  1888,  for  the 
free  navigation  of  the  Suez  Canal;  that  is  to  say: 

1.  The  canal  shall  be  free  and  open  to  the  vessels  of  commerce  and 
of  war  of  all  nations  on  terms  of  entire  equality,  so  that  there  shall 
be  no  discrimination  against  any  nation  or  its  citizens  or  subjects 
in  respect  of  the  conditions  or  charges  of  traffic  or  otherwise. 

2.  The  canal  shall  never  be  blockaded,  nor  shall  any  right  of  war 
be  exercised  nor  any  art  of  hostility  be  committed  within  it.  The 
United  States,  however,  shall  be  at  liberty  to  maintain  such  military 
police  along  the  canal  as  may  be  necessary  to  protect  it  against 
lawlessness  and  disorder. 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  21 

3.  Vessels  of  war  of  a  belligerent  shall  not  revictual  nor  take  any 
stores  in  the  canal  except  so  far  as  may  be  strictly  necessary;  and 
the  transit  of  such  vessels  through  the  canal  shall  be  effected  with  the 
least  possible  delay  in  accordance  with  the  regulations  in  force  and 
with  only  such  intermission  as  may  result  from  the  necessities  of 
the  service. 

Prizes  shall  be  in  all  respects  subject  to  the  same  rules  as  vessels 
of  war  of  the  belligerents. 

4.  No  belligerent  shall  embark  or  disembark  troops,  munitions  of 
war,  or  warlike  materials  in  the  canal  except  in  case  of  accidental 
binderance  of  the  transit,  and  in  such  case  the  transit  shall  be  re- 
sumed with  all  possible  dispatch. 

5.  The  provisions  of  this  article  shall  apply  to  waters  adjacent  to 
the  canal  within  3  marine  miles  of  either  end.  Vessels  of  war  of  a 
belligerent  shall  not  remain  in  such  water  longer  than  twenty-four 
hours  at  any  one  time  except  in  case  of  distress,  and  in  such  case  shall 
depart  as  soon  as  possible ;  but  a  vessel  of  war  of  one  belligerent  shall 
not  depart  within  twenty-four  hours  from  the  departure  of  a  vessel 
of  war  of  the  other  belligerent. 

6.  The  plant,  establishments,  buildings,  and  all  works  necessary 
to  the  construction,  maintenance,  and  operation  of  the  canal  shall  be 
deemed  to  be  part  thereof,  for  the  purpose  of  this  convention,  and  in 
time  of  war  as  in  time  of  peace  shall  enjoy  complete  immunity  from 
attack  or  injury  by  belligerents  and  from  acts  calculated  to  impair 
their  usefulness  as  part  of  the  canal. 

Article  IV. 

The  present  convention  shall  be  ratified  by  the  President  of  the 
United  States,  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate 
thereof,  and  by  His  Britannic  Majesty;  and  the  ratifications  shall  be 
exchanged  at  Washington  or  at  London  at  the  earliest  possible  time 
within months  from  the  date  hereof. 

In  faith  whereof  the  respective  plenipotentiaries  have  signed  this 
convention,  and  thereunto  affixed  their  seals. 

Done,  in  duplicate,  at  Washington  the day  of ,  in  the 

j^ear  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  nine  hundred  and  one. 


Mr.  Hay  to  Mr.  Ohoate. 

[Extract   from  a  private,   personal  letter  not  of  record.] 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  April  27,  J 901. 
Private  and  personal.] 

My  Dear  Mr.  Choate  :  I  seize  an  instant  in  my  last  hurried  day 
before  starting  West  with  the  President  to  send  you  the  inclosed 
project  for  a  convention  between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain., 
to  take  the  place  of  the  extinct  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty,  so  called.1 

I  have  drawn  this  up  with  very  great  care,  after  serious  and  ex- 
tended conversations  with  Lord  Pauncefote  and  with  leading  Mem- 


1  See  printed  ante,  Lord  Pauncefote  to  Marquis  Lansdowne,  Apr.  25,  1901. 


22  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL. 

bers  of  the  Senate.  You  will  see.  by  a  careful  perusal  of  it  and 
comparison  with  the  extinct  treaty,  that  it  contains  substantially  all 
that  was  asked  for  in  the  amended  treaty,  but  in  a  form  which,  I  hope, 
will  not  be  objectionable  to  the  British  Government,  The  provision 
superseding  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty  is,  as  you  see,  contained  in 
a  special  article  instead  of  being  introduced  in  a  parenthesis.  In 
Article  III  you  will  notice  that  the  United  States  "  adopts  "  the  rules 
of  neutralization  instead  of  making  it  a  joint  guaranty  in  company 
with  England.  The  seventh  section  of  Article  III  is  left  out  entirely, 
and  the  provision  for  the  military  police  of  the  canal  is  transferred 
to  section  2.  The  question  of  fortification  is  thus  passed  sub  silentio. 
I  hope  it  will  not  be  considered  important  enough  for  the  British 
Government  to  take  exceptions  to  this  omission.  In  this  new  redac- 
tion the  Davis  amendment  disappears,  as  you  see,  entirely.  By 
eliminating  the  words  "  in  peace  as  well  as  in  war,"  in  the  first  section 
of  Article  III,  and  by  the  omission  of  the  seventh  section  it  has  been 
thought  by  many  Senators  that  the  necessity  for  the  Davis  amend- 
ment has  disappeared.  The  third  section,  omitted  by  the  Senate,  is 
also  omitted  in  this  new  draft.  If  we  release  Great  Britain  from  the 
obligation  of  the  joint  guaranty  there  is  no  reason  why  the  rest  of 
the  world  should  not  be  released  in  like  manner,  and  the  United 
States  assume  alone  the  duty  of  guaranteeing  the  neutrality  of  the 
canal.    Nobody  loses  by  it  except  ourselves. 

In  the  hurry  of  my  departure  I  am  unable  to  enter  into  any  elab- 
orate explanation  of  the  provisions  of  this  treaty.  When  Mr.  White 
returns  he  can  tell  you  somewhat  at  length  the  considerations  which 
have  entered  into  its  composition. 

As  to  this  new  project,  I  have  sent  it  for  your  own  private  consid- 
eration. You  are  not  instructed  to  bring  it  before  the  foreign  office 
until  further  advised,  but  as  Lord  Pauncefote  is  sending  a  copy  to 
Lord  Lansdowne  about  this  time  it  is  possible  that  his  lordship  may 
refer  to  the  matter  in  conversation  with  you.  In  that  case  I  should 
be  obliged  if  you  would  say  what  you  can  in  advocacy  of  its  adoption, 
precisely  on  the  line  of  your  clear  and  strong  argument  in  favor  of 
the  Senate  amendments.  But  I  think  altogether  probable  that  Lord 
Lansdowne  may  not  refer  to  the  subject  until  the  arrival  of  Lord 
Pauncefote,  who  now  expects  to  sail  for  England  about  the  5th  of 
June.  When  he  arrives  I  hope  you  will  converse  freely  with  him  in 
regard  to  the  matter.  He  and  I  are  entirely  in  agreement  as  to  ihe 
leading  principles  to  be  observed  in  making  such  a  treaty,  and  also 
in  regard  to  the  peculiar  necessities  of  the  political  situation  in 
Washington,  which,  of  course,  you  understand  but  which  neither 
Lord  Lansdowne  nor  any  European  public  official  can  possibly  under- 
stand who  has  not  lived  in  America. 
Very  sincerly,  yours, 

John  Hay. 

^Extracts   from   a   private    letter   uot   of   record;    original    not   in    Department   of   Sta'c.] 

Mr.  Choate  to  Col.  Hay,  June  2.'h  1901. 

You  must  not  think,  from  hearing  nothing  from  me  thus  far, 
that  the  canal  business  is  beino-  neglected.     On  Lord   Pauncefote's 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  23 

arrival,  I  asked  for  an  interview  and  put  myself  at  his  service,  tell- 
ing him  that  you  had  written  me  that  he  was  fully  possessed  of  your 
views,  and  that  you  wished  me  to  talk  the  matter  fully  over  with 
him.  But  he  said,  sensibly  enough,  that  perhaps  it  would  be  better 
not  to  go  into  the  matter  with  me  until  he  had  discussed  it  with  his 
own  people — and  I  have  reason  to  think  that  he  has  ever  since  been 
so  engaged.  I  know  that  he  has  gone  over  it  with  the  lord  chancel- 
lor, upon  whose  advice  on  legal  construction  Lord  Lansdowne 
naturally  relies,  and  with  Lord  Lansdowne  himself,  and  I  believe  that 
it  has  been  once  at  least  considered  by  the  cabinet.  Lord  Lansdowne 
told  me  week  before  last  that  he  and  Lord  Pauncefote  both  would 
be  ready  to  talk  with  me  about  it  in  a  few  days,  from  which  I  infer 
that  Lord  Pauncefote's  reticence  was  not  self-imposed.  He  also 
intimated,  or  at  least  I  so  understood  him,  that  they  were  preparing 
a  new  draft  as  a  counter  proposition,  which  probably  accounts  for 
the  delay.  If  they  do,  I  hope  any  change  will  be  all  in  the  direc- 
tion of  general  expressions,  avoiding  detailed  phraseology  over 
which  Senators  may  dispute.  Would  not  an  ideal  treaty  under  all 
the  circumstances  be  in  three  articles?  (1)  Abrogating  the  Clay ton - 
Bulwer  treaty;  (2)  providing  that  the  canal  should  be  wholly 
American  in  building,  ownership,  and  control;  (3)  that  it  should 
be  absolutely  neutral,  and  free  and  open  to  the  ships  of  all  nations 
on  equal  terms?  Under  such  a  treaty,  would  not  all  questions  about 
war  settle  themselves,  or  rather  could  any  such  questions  arise? 

Meanwhile,  I  have  been  carefully  considering  your  project  for  a 
convention,  and  I  understand  from  the  elimination  of  the  words 
"  in  time  of  war  as  in  time  of  peace,"  in  the  first  section  of  Article 
III,  and  from  Mr.  White's  recollection  of  your  views,  that  this  project 
of  treaty  is  not  intended  to  apply  to  a  state  of  war  between  the 
United  States  and  Great  Britain;  that  such  a  war,  while  it  lasted, 
would  have  upon  this  treaty  the  usual  eifect  of  war  upon  treaties, 
and  suspend  its  operation  as  between  us  and  the  enemy.  So  that 
during  its  continuance  the  canal  and  the  waters  adjacent  within 
the  3-mile  limit  would  not  as  between  us  and  Great  Britain  be 
neutral  ground.  Practically  this  would  be  so.  The  treaty  no  longer 
stipulating  for  the  neutrality  of  the  canal  in  time  of  war,  we  should 
certainly  close  it  in  that  event  against  her  ships  of  war,  whenever 
we  found  it  necessary  for  our  safety  and  interest  to  do  so,  and  we 
should  not  permit  a  hostile  British  fleet  to  go  through  to  destroy 
San  Francisco.  Suppose  the  two  hostile  fleets  to  rendezvous  in  the 
neighborhood  of  the  canal,  as  upon  the  outbreak  of  war  they  would 
be  likely  to  do.  Each  would  certainly  do  its  best  to  destroy  the 
other  wherever  it  could  be  found,  whether  within  or  without  the 
o-mile  limit,  and  I  understand  your  purpose  to  be  that  this  treaty 
shall  not  in  that  case  stand  in  the  way;  that  in  case  of  war,  not- 
withstanding the  elision  of  the  Davis  amendment,  each  of  the  con- 
tracting parties  is  left  free  to  defend  itself  whenever  and  wherever, 
as  best  it  can — or  as  Lord  Lansdowne  put  it  in  a  desultory  talk  we 
had,  "In  case  we  got  into  a  war  with  you  we  both  fall  back  on  our 
reserved  rights."  Perhaps  in  the  course  of  further  consideration 
this  idea  may  be  a  little  more  clearly  expressed,  and  not  left  so 
much  to  inference,  and  I  should  not  wonder  if  Great  Britain  her- 


24  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

self  should  suggest  some  such  thing.  In  this  view  or  construction 
the  word  "  belligerent "  wherever  used  in  Article  III  would  not 
include  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  when  engaged  in  war 
with  each  other.  Nor  would  the  first  clause  of  section  2  of  that 
article,  "That  the  canal  shall  never  be  blockaded, nor  shall  any  right 
of  war  be  exercised  nor  any  act  of  hostility  be  committed  within 
it,"  or  (sec.  5)  "in  waters  adjacent  to  the  canal  within  3  marine 
miles  of  either  end,"  apply  to  either  of  the  combatants  in  such  a 
Avar.  At  first  blush  this  first  clause  of  section  2  might  be  seized 
upon  by  a  Senator,  not  committed  to  the  exact  phraseology  of  the 
"  project "  and  desirous  of  defeating  it,  as  stipulating  that  even  in 
time  of  war  with  Great  Britain  we  would  not  blockade  the  canal  to 
prevent  a  British  ship  of  war  from  going  through,  or  exercise  any 
right  of  war  or  commit  any  act  of  hostility  within  the  3 -mile  limit, 
but  I  assume  that  your  answer  would  be  that  considering  there  are 
rules  of  neutrality  and  that  nothing  belonging  to  one  combatant  can 
be  neutral  as  to  the  other  combatant  while  engaged  in  actual  war 
unless  so  expressly  agreed,  and  so  settled  by  the  established  rules 
of  international  law  and  considering  that  the  words  "  in  time  of 
war  as  well  as  in  time  of  peace  "  have  been  studiously  omitted,  the 
suggestion  of  the  Senator  was  not  well  founded. 

Assuming  this  to  be  the  correct  view  of  the  purpose  of  the 
"  project  " — perhaps  the  sixth  clause  of  Article  IV,  clause  6,  providing 
expressly  that  "  in  time  of  war  as  in  time  of  peace  "  the  canal,  plant, 
etc.,  shall  enjoy  complete  immunity  from  attack  or  injury  by  bellig- 
erents, it  may  be  regarded  as  an  exception,  and  be  intended  to  secure 
such  immunity  at  all  events  as  against  everybody  in  war  and  in 
peace — but  as  it  seems  to  be  limited  to  immunity  from  "  belligerents," 
I  should  like,  if  universal  immunity  was  intended,  to  have  it  made 
a  little  more  clear.  Considering  the  retention  in  this  "  project "  of 
the  references  to  the  Suez  Canal  treaty  and  to  the  eighth  clause  of  the 
Clayton-Bulwer  treaty,  there  is  some  chance  for  dispute  in  the  Senate 
about  any  construction  that  may  be  put  upon  particular  phrases  of 
it,  and  I  am  very  glad  to  infer  from  your  letter  that  the  Senate  or 
the  necessary  two-thirds,  are  prepared  to  accept  it  if  it  should  prove 
acceptable  to  Great  Britain.  What  Mr.  White  understood  to  be  your 
construction  of  the  "  project "  conforms  to  the  idea  of  Mr.  Lodge, 
who  has  been  here,  that  no  treaty  could  pass  the  Senate  which  would 
permit  a  war  ship  of  Great  Britain  to  use  the  canal  in  time  of  war 
between  us  and  that  power.  He  appeared  not  to  have  seen  the  text 
of  your  "  project,"  and  so  I  did  not  feel  at  liberty  to  show  it  to  him. 
He  called  on  Lord  Lansdowne  at  the  latter's  request,  and  lunched 
with  Mr.  Balfour  in  company  with  Lord  L.  The  latter  expressed 
himself  to  me  as  much  pleased  with  the  interview  and  with  the 
Senator,  and  I  believe  that  Mr.  Lodge  gave  him  the  senatorial  view 
very  straight.  Perhaps,  if  I  have  not  correctly  apprehended  your 
view  as  to  the  intended  construction  and  effect  of  this  "  project  "  you 
will  at  once  set  me  right.  If  they  propose  a  new  draft  as  a  counter- 
project,  as  I  am  now  expecting,  this  may  not  be  important,  but  at 
.any  rate  I  would  like  to  have  your  views  a  little  more  fully  and 
precisely. 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  25 

The  Marquis  of  Lansdowne  to  Mr.  Lowther.1 

Foreign  Office,  August  3, 1901. 

Sir:  The  draft  convention  dealing  with  the  question  of  the  inter- 
oceanic  canal,  forwarded  in  Lord  Pauncefote's  despatch  of  the  25th 
April,  has  been  most  carefully  examined. 

I  inclose,  for  your  information,  the  accompanying  copy  of  a  mem- 
orandum explaining  the  views  of  His  Majesty's  Government,  which  I 
have  authorized  Lord  Pauncefote,  should  he  think  proper,  to  com- 
municate to  Mr.  Hay. 

His  Majesty's  Government  have  approached  the  consideration  of 
this  important  question  with  a  sincere  desire  to  facilitate  the  progress 
of  the  great  enterprise  in  which  both  Governments  take  such  interest. 
They  feel  confident  that  the  United  States  Government  will  give  them 
credit  for  the  friendly  spirit  in  which  Mr.  Hay's  proposals  have  been 
examined  and  that  they  will  recognize  that  if  it  has  been  deemed  nec- 
essary to  suggest  amendments  at  one  or  two  points  it  has  been  because 
they  are  considered  requisite  for  the  purpose  of  bringing  about  the 
conclusion  of  a  treaty  which  shall  be  accepted  as  equitable  and  satis- 
factory by  the  public  of  both  countries. 

I  am,  etc.,  Lansdowne. 


[Inclosure  1  in  No.  2.] 
[Memorandum.] 

In  the  despatch  which  I  addressed  to  Lord  Pauncefote  on  the  22d 
February  last,  and  which  was  communicated  to  Mr.  Hay  on  the 
11th  March,  I  explained  the  reasons  for  which  His  Majesty's  Gov- 
ernment were  unable  to  accept  the  amendments  introduced  by  the 
Senate  of  the  United  States  into  the  convention,  signed  at  Wash- 
ington in  February,  1900,  relative  to  the  construction  of  an  inter- 
oceanic  canal. 

The  amendments  were  three  in  number,  namely : 

1.  The  insertion  in  Article  II,  after  the  reference  to  Article  VIII  of  the  Clay- 
ton-Bulwer  convention,  of  the  words  "  which  convention  is  hereby  superseded." 

2.  The  addition  of  a  new  paragraph  after  section  5  of  Article  II  in  the  follow- 
ing terms : 

"  It  is  agreed,  however,  that  none  of  the  immediately  foregoing  conditions 
and  stipulations  in  sections  numbered  1,  2,  3,  4,  and  5  of  this  article  shall  apply 
to  measures  which  the  United  States  may  find  it  necessary  to  take  for  securing 
by  its  own  forces  the  defense  of  the  United  States  and  the  maintenance  of 
public  order." 

3.  The  excision  of  Article  III,  which  provides  that  "  the  high  contracting 
parties  will,  immediately  upon  the  exchange  of  the  ratifications  of  this  conven- 
tion, bring  it  to  the  notice  of  the  other  powers  and  invite  them  to  adhere  to  it." 

2.  The  objections  entertained  by  His  Majesty's  Government  may 
be  briefly  stated  as  follows : 

(1)  The  Clayton-Bulwer  convention  being  an  international  com- 
pact of  unquestionable  validity  could  not  be  abrogated  or  modified 
save  with  the  consent  of  both  parties  to  the  contract.     No  attempt 

1  British  Bluebook,  United  States,  1902,  No.  1. 


26  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

had,  however,  been  made  to  ascertain  the  views  of  Her  Late  Majesty's 
Government.  The  convention  dealt  with  several  matters  for  which 
no  provision  had  been  made  in  the  convention  of  February,  1900,  and 
if  the  former  were  wholly  abrogated  both  powers  would,  except  in 
the  vicinity  of  the  canal,  recover  entire  freedom  of  action  in  Central 
America,  a  change  which  might  be  of  substantial  importance. 

(2)  The  reservation  to  the  United  States  of  the  right  to  take  any 
measures  which  it  might  find  necessary  to  secure  by  its  own  forces 
the  defense  of  the  United  States  appeared  to  His  Majesty's  Govern- 
ment to  involve  a  distinct  departure  from  the  principle  of  neutrali- 
zation which  until  then  had  found  acceptance  with  both  Govern- 
ments, and  which  both  were,  under  the  convention  of  1900,  bound 
to  uphold.  Moreover,  if  the  amendment  were  added,  the  obligation 
to  respect  the  neutrality  of  the  canal  in  all  circumstances  would, 
so  far  as  Great  Britain  was  concerned,  remain  in  force ;  the  obligation 
of  the  United  States,  on  the  other  hand,  would  be  essentially  modified. 
The  result  would  be  a  one-sided  arrangement,  under  which  Great 
Britain  would  be  debarred  from  any  warlike  action  in  or  around  the 
canal,  while  the  United  States  would  be  able  to  resort  to  such  action 
even  in  time  of  peace  to  whatever  extent  they  might  deem  necessary 
to  secure  their  own  safety. 

(3)  The  omission  of  the  article  inviting  the  adherence  of  other 
powers  placed  this  country  in  a  position  of  marked  disadvantage 
compared  with  other  powers;  while  the  United  States  would  have 
a  treaty  right  to  interfere  with  the  canal  in  time  of  war  or  appre- 
hended war,  and  while  other  powers  could  with  a  clear  conscience 
disregard  any  of  the  restrictions  imposed  by  the  convention  of  1900. 
Great  Britain  alone  would  be  absolutely  precluded  from  resorting 
to  any  such  action  or  from  taking  measures  to  secure  her  interests 
in  and  near  the  canal. 

For  these  reasons  His  Majesty's  Government  preferred,  as  matters 
stood,  to  retain  unmodified  the  provisions  of  the  Clayton-Bulwer 
convention.  They  had,  however,  throughout  the  negotiations  given 
evidence  of  their  earnest  desire  to  meet  the  views  of  the  United  States, 
and  would  sincerely  regret  a  failure  to  come  to  an  amicable  under- 
standing in  regard  to  this  important  subject. 

3.  Mr.  Hay,  rightly  apprehending  that  His  Majesty's  Government 
did  not  intend  to  preclude  all  further  attempt  at  negotiation,  has 
endeavored  to  find  means  by  which  to  reconcile  such  divergences  of 
view  as  exist  between  the  two  Governments,  and  has  communicated 
a  further  draft  of  a  treaty  for  the  consideration  of  His  Majesty's 
Government. 

Following  the  order  of  the  Senate  amendments,  the  convention 
now  proposed — 

(1)  Provides  by  a  separate  article  that  the  Clayton-Bulwer  con- 
vention shall  be  superseded. 

(2)  The  paragraph  inserted  by  the  Senate  after  section  5  of  Arti- 
cle II  is  omitted. 

(3)  The  article  inviting  other  powers  to  adhere  is  omitted. 
There  are  three  other  points  to  which  attention  must  be  directed : 

(a)  The  words  "in  time  of  war  as  in  time  of  peace"  are  omitted 
in  rule  1. 

(b)  The  draft  contains  no  stipulation  against  the  acquisition  of 
sovereignty  over  the  Isthmus  oi  over  the  strip  of  territory  through 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  27 

which  the  canal  is  intended  to  pass.  There  was  no  stipulation  of 
this  kind  in  the  Hay-Pauncefote  convention;  but,  by  the  surviving 
portion  of  Article  I  of  the  Clayton-Bulwer  convention,  the  two' 
Governments  agreed  that  neither  would  ever  "  occupy,  or  fortify, 
or  colonize,  or  assume,  or  exercise  any  dominion  over  Nicaragua. 
Costa  Rica,  the  Mosquito  Coast,  or  any  part  of  Contral  America," 
nor  attain  any  of  the  foregoing  objects  by  protection  offered  to,  or 
alliance  with,  any  State  or  people  of  Central  America. 

(c)  While  the  amendment  reserving  to  the  United  States  the  right 
of  providing  for  the  defense  of  the  canal  is  no  longer  pressed  for,  the 
first  portion  of  rule  7,  providing  that  "  no  fortifications  shall  be 
erected  commanding  the  canal  or  the  waters  adjacent,"  has  been 
omitted.  The  latter  portion  of  the  rule  has  been  incorporated  in 
rule  2  of  the  new  draft,  and  makes  provision  for  military  police  to 
protect  the  canal  against  lawlessness  and  disorder. 

4.  I  fully  recognize  the  friendly  spirit  which  has  prompted  Mr.  Hay 
in  making  further  proposals  for  the  settlement  of  the  question,  and 
while  in  no  way  abandoning  the  position  which  His  Majesty's  Gov- 
ernment assumed  in  rejecting  the  Senate  amendments,  or  admitting 
that  the  despatch  of  the  22d  February  was  other  than  a  well-founded, 
moderate,  and  reasonable  statement  of  the  British  case,  I  have  exam- 
ined the  draft  treaty  with  every  wish  to  arrive  at  a  conclusion  which 
shall  facilitate  the  construction  of  an  interoceanic  canal  by  the  United 
States  without  involving  on  the  part  of  His  Majesty's  Government 
any  departure  from  the  principles  for  which  they  have  throughout 
contended.. 

5.  In  form  the  new  draft  differs  from  the  convention  of  1900,  un- 
der which  the  high  contracting  parties,  after  agreeing  that  the  canal 
might  be  constructed  by  the  United  States,  undertook  to  adopt  cer- 
tain rules  as  the  basis  upon  which  the  canal  was  to  be  neutralized. 
In  the  new  draft  the  United  States  intimate  their  readiness  "  to 
adopt "  somewhat  similar  rules  as  the  basis  of  the  neutralization  of 
the  canal.  It  would  appear  to  follow  that  the  whole  responsibility 
for  upholding  these  rules,  and  thereby  maintaining  the  neutrality 
of  the  canal,  would  henceforward  be  assumed  by  the  Government  of 
the  United  States.  The  change  of  form  is  an  important  one;  but 
in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  whole  cost  of  the  construction  of  the 
canal  is  to  be  borne  by  that  Government,  which  is  also  to  be  charged 
with  such  measures  as  ma}'  be  necessary  to  protect  it  against  law- 
lessness and  disorder,  His  Majesty's  Government  are  not  likely  to 
object  to  it. 

6.  The  proposal  to  abrogate  the  Clayton-Bulwer  convention  is  not, 
I  think,  inadmissible  if  it  can  be  shown  that  sufficient  provision  is 
made  in  the  new  treaty  for  such  portions  of  the  convention  as  ought, 
in  the  interests  of  this  country,  to  remain  in  force.  This  aspect  of 
the  case  must  be  considered  in  connection  with  the  provisions  of 
Article  I  of  the  Clayton-Bulwer  convention  which  have  already  been 
quoted,  and  Article  VIII  referred  to  in  the  preamble  of  the  new 
treaty. 

Thus,  in  view  of  the  permanent  character  of  the  treaty  to  be  con- 
cluded and  of  the  "  general  principle  "  reaffirmed  thereby  as  a  per- 
petual obligation,  the  high  contracting  parties  should  agree  that  no 
change  of  sovereignty  or  other  change  of  circumstances  in  the  ter- 
ritory through  which  the  canal  is  intended  to  pass  shall  affect  such 


28  DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

"  general  principle  "  or  release  the  high  contracting  parties,  or  either 
of  them,  from  their  obligations  under  the  treaty,  and  that  the  rules 
adopted  as  the  basis  of  neutralization  shall  govern,  so  far  as  pos- 
sible, all  interoceanic  communications  across  the  Isthmus. 

I  would  therefore  propose  an  additional  article  in  the  following 
terms,  on  the  acceptance  of  which  His  Majesty's  Government  would 
probably  be  prepared  to  withdraw  their  objections  to  the  formal 
abrogation  of  the  Clayton-Bulwer  convention : 

In  view  of  the  permanent  character  of  this  treaty,  whereby  the  general  prin- 
ciple established  by  Article  VIII  of  the  Clayton-Bulwer  convention  is  re- 
affirmed,  the  high  contracting  parties  hereby  declare  and  agree  that  the  rules 
laid  down  in  the  last  preceding  article  shall,  so  far  as  they  may  be  applicable, 
govern  all  interoceanic  communications  i  cross  Hie  Isthmus  which  connects 
North  and  South  America,  and  that  no  change  of  territorial  sovereignty,  or 
other  change  of  circumstances,  shall  affect  such  general  principle  or  the 
obligations  of  the  high  contracting  parties  under  the  present  treaty. 

7.  The  various  points  connected  with  the  defense  of  the  canal 
may  be  conveniently  considered  together.  In  the  present  draft  the 
Senate  amendment  has  been  dropped,  which  left  the  United  States 
at  liberty  to  apply  such  measures  as  might  be  found  "  necessary  to 
take  for  securing  by  its  own  forces  the  defense  of  the  United  States." 
On  the  other  hand,  the  words  "  in  time  of  war  as  in  time  of  peace  " 
are  omitted  from  rule  1,  and  there  is  no  stipulation,  as  originally  in 
rule  7,  prohibiting  the  erection  of  fortifications  commanding  the  canal 
or  the  waters  adjacent. 

I  do  not  fail  to  observe  the  important  difference  between  the 
question  as  now  presented  to  us  and  the  position  which  was  created 
by  the  amendment  adopted  in  the  Senate. 

In  my  despatch  I  pointed  out  the  dangerous  ambiguity  of  an 
instrument  of  which  one  clause  permitted  the  adoption  of  defensive 
measures,  while  another  prohibited  the  erection  of  fortifications.  It 
is  most  important  that  no  doubt  should  exist  as  to  the  intention  of 
the  contracting  parties.  As  to  this,  I  understand  that  by  the  omis- 
sion of  all  reference  to  the  matter  of  defense  the  United  States  Gov- 
ernment desire  to  reserve  the  power  of  taking  measures  to  protect  the 
canal,  at  any  time  when  the  United  States  may  be  at  war.  from 
destruction  or  damage  at  the  hands  of  an  enemy  or  enemies.  On  the 
other  hand,  I  conclude  that,  with  the  above  exceptions,  there  is  no 
intention  to  derogate  from  the  principles  of  neutrality  laid  clown  by 
the  rules.  As  to  the  first  of  these  propositions  I  am  not  prepared  to 
deny  that  contingencies  may  arise  when,  not  only  from  a  national 
point  of  view,  but  on  behalf  of  the  commercial  interests  of  the  whole 
world,  it  might  be  of  supreme  importance  to  the  United  States  that 
they  should  be  free  to  adopt  measures  for  the  defense  of  the  canal  at 
a  moment  when  they  were  themselves  engaged  in  hostilities. 

It  is  also  to  be  borne  in  mind  that,  owing  to  the  omission  of  the 
words  under  which  this  country  became  jointly  bound  to  defend  the 
neutrality  of  the  canal,  and  the  abrogation  of  the  Clayton-Bulwer 
treaty,  the  obligations  of  Great  Britain  would  be  materially  dimin- 
ished. 

This  is  a  most  important  consideration.  In  my  despatch  of  the 
•2-2(]  February  I  dwelt  upon  the  strong  objection  entertained  by  His 
Majesty's  Government  to  any  agreement  under  which,  while  the 
United  States  would  have  a  treaty  right  to  interfere  with  the  canal 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL.  29 

in  time  of  war,  or  apprehended  war.  Great  Britain  alone,  in  spite  of 
her  vast  possessions  on  the  American  Continent  and  the  extent  of  her 
interests  in  the  East,  would  be  absolutely  precluded  from  resorting 
to  any  such  action,  or  from  taking  measures  to  secure  her  interests 
in  and  near  the  canal.  The  same  exception  could  not  be  taken  to  an 
arrangement  under  which,  supposing  that  the  United  States,  as  the 
power  owning  the  canal  and  responsible  for  the  maintenance  of  its 
neutrality,  should  find  it  necessary  to  interfere  temporarily  with  its 
free  use  by  the  shipping  of  another  power,  that  power  would  there- 
upon at  once  and  ipso  facto  become  liberated  from  the  necessity  of 
observing  the  rules  laid  down  in  the  new  treaty. 

8.  The  difficulty  raised  by  the  absence  of  any  provision  for  the 
adherence  of  other  powers  still  remains.  While  indifferent  as  to  the 
form  in  which  the  point  is  met,  I  must  emphatically  renew  the  ob- 
jections of  His  Majesty's  Government  to  being  bound  by  stringent 
rules  of  neutral  conduct  not  equally  binding  upon  other  powers. 
I  would  therefore  suggest  the  insertion  in  rule  1,  after  "  all  nations," 
of  the  words  "  which  shall  agree  to  observe  these  rules."  This  addi- 
tion will  impose  upon  other  powers  the  same  self-denying  ordinance 
as  Great  Britain  is  desired  to  accept,  and  will  furnish  an  additional 
security  for  the  neutrality  of  the  canal,  which  it  will  be  the  duty  of 
the  United  States  to  maintain. 

As  matters  of  minor  importance,  I  suggest  the  renewal  of  one  of 
the  stipulations  of  Article  VIII  of  the  Clayton-Bulwer  convention 
by  adding  to  rule  1  the  words  "  such  conditions  and  charges  shall  be 
just  and  equitable,"  and  the  adoption  of  "  treaty  "  in  lieu  of  "  con- 
vention "  to  designate  the  international  agreement  which  the  high 
contracting  parties  may  conclude. 

Mr.  Hay's  draft,  with  the  proposed  amendments  shown  in  italics, 
is  annexed. 

Lansdowne. 

August  3,  1901. 

[Inclosure  2  in  No.  2.] 

Draft  of  treaty  relative  to  the  construction  of  an  interact  </<>'<■  canal. 

The  United  States  of  America  and  His  Majesty,  the  King  of  the 
United  Kingdom  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland,  etc.,  being  desirous 
to  facilitate  the  construction  of  a  ship  canal  to  connect  the  Atlantic 
and  Pacific  Oceans,  and  to  that  end  to  remove  any  objection  which 
may  arise  out  of  the  convention  of  the  19th  April,  1850,  commonly 
called  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty,  to  the  construction  of  such  canal 
under  the  auspices  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  without 
impairing  the  "  general  principle "  of  neutralization  established  in 
Article  VIII  of  that  convention,  have  for  that  purpose  appointed  as 
their  plenipotentiaries : 

The  President  of  the  United  States,  John  Hay,  Secretary  of  State 
of  the  United  States  of  America : 

And  His  Majesty  the  King  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland,  etc.,  the 
Right  Honourable  Lord  Pauncefote,  G.  C.  B.,  G.  C.  M.  G.,  His 
Majesty's  ambassador  extraordinary  and  plenipotentiary  to  the 
United  States; 


30  DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

Who,  having  communicated  to  each  other  their  full  powers,  which 
were  found  to  be  in  due  and  proper  form,  have  agreed  upon  the  fol- 
lowing articles : 

Article  I. 

The  high  contracting  parties  agree  that  the  present  treaty  shall 
supersede  the  aforementioned  convention  of  the  19th  April,  1850. 

Article  II. 

It  is  agreed  that  the  canal  may  be  constructed  under  the  auspices 
of  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  either  directly  at  its  own 
cost,  or  by  gift  or  loan  of  money  to  individuals  or  corporations,  or 
through  subscription  to  or  purchase  of  stock  or  shares,  and  that,  sub- 
ject to  the  provisions  of  the  present  treaty,  the  said  Government  shall 
have  and  enjoy  all  the  rights  incident  to  such  construction,  as  well  as 
the  exclusive  right  of  providing  for  the  regulation  and  management 
of  the  canal. 

Article  III. 

The  United  States  adopts,  as  the  basis  of  the  neutralization  of  said 
ship  canal,  the  following  rules,  substantially  as  embodied  in  the  con- 
vention of  Constantinople,  signed  the  28th  October,  1888,  for  the  free 
navigation  of  the  Suez  Canal,  that  is  to  say : 

1.  The  canal  shall  be  free  and  open  to  the  vessels  of  commerce  and 
of  war  of  all  nations  which  shall  agree  to  observe  these  rules,  on  terms 
of  entire  equality,  so  that  there  shall  be  no  discrimination  against 
any  nation  so  agreeing,  or  its  citizens  or  subjects,  in  respect  of  the 
conditions  or  charges  of  traffic,  or  otherwise.  Such  conditions  and 
charges  of  traffic  shall  be  just  and  equitable. 

2.  The  canal  shall  never  be  blockaded,  nor  shall  any  right  of  war 
be  exercised  nor  any  act  of  hostility  be  committed  within  it.  The 
United  States,  however,  shall  be  at  liberty  to  maintain  such  military 
police  along  the  canal  as  may  be  necessary  to  protect  it  against  law- 
lessness and  disorder. 

3.  Vessels  of  war  of  a  belligerent  shall  not  revictual  nor  take  any 
stores  in  the  canal  except  so  far  as  may  be  strictly  necessary;  and 
the  transit  of  such  vessels  through  the  canal  shall  be  effected  with 
the  least  possible  delay  in  accordance  with  the  regulations  in  force, 
and  with  only  such  intermission  as  may  result  from  the  necessities 
of  the  service. 

Prizes  shall  be  in  all  respects  subject  to  the  same  rules  as  vessels 
of  war  of  the  belligerents. 

4.  No  belligerent  shall  embark  or  disembark  troops,  munitions  of 
.war,  or  warlike  materials  in  the  canal  except  in  case  of  accidental 

hinderance  of  the  transit,  and   in  such  case  the  transit    shall    be 
resumed  with  all  possible  dispatch. 

5.  The  provisions  of  this  article  shall  apply  to  waters  adjacent  to 
the  canal  within  3  marine  miles  of  either  end.  Vessels  of  war  of  a 
belligerent  shall  not  remain  in  such  waters  longer  than  twenty-four 
hours  at  uny  one  time  except  in  case  of  distress,  and  in  such  case 
shall  depart  as  soon  as  possible:  but  a  vessel  of  war  of  one  bellig- 
erent shall  not  depart  within  twenty-four  hours  from  the  departure 
of  a  vessel  of  war  of  the  other  belligerent. 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  31 

6.  The  plant,  establishments,  buildings,  and  all  works  necessary 
to  the  construction,  maintenance,  and  operation  of  the  canal  shall 
be  deemed  to  be  part  thereof  for  the  purposes  of  this  treaty,  and  in 
time  of  war,  as  in  time  of  peace,  shall  enjoy  complete  immunity  from 
attack  or  injury  by  belligerents  and  from  acts  calculated  to  impair 
their  usefulness  as  part  of  the  canal. 

Article  III-A. 

In  view  of  the  'permanent  character  of  this  treaty  whereby  the  gen- 
eral principle  established  by  Article  VIII  of  the  Clayton-Bulwer  con- 
vention is  reaffirmed,  the  high  contracting  parties  hereby  declare  and 
agree  that  the  rules  laid  down  in  the  last  preceding  article  shall,  so 
far  as  they  may  be  applicable,  govern  all  interoceanic  communica- 
tions across  the  isthmus  which  connects  North  and  South  America, 
end  that  no  change  of  territorial  sovereignty,  or  other  change  of  cir- 
cumstances, shall  affect  such  general  principle  or  the  obligations  of 
the  high  contracting  parties  under  the  present  treaty. 

Article  IV. 

The  present  treaty  shall  be  ratified  by  the  President  of  the  United 
States,  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate  thereof, 
and  by  His  Britannic  Majesty;  and  the  ratifications  shall  be  ex- 
changed at  Washington  or  at  London  at  the  earliest  possible  time 
within months  from  the  date  hereof. 

In  faith  whereof  the  respective  plenipotentiaries  have  signed  this 
treaty,  and  thereunto  affixed  their  seals. 

Done  in  duplicate  at  Washington,  the day  of  ■ -,  in  the 

Year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  nine  hundred  and  one. 


Mr.  Choate  to  Col.  Hay,  16  August,  1901. 

Dear  Col.  Hay:  I  have  your  kind  letter  of  the  5th,1  and  was  much 
pleased  to  know  that  I  correctly  understood  your  views  about  your 
project  of  treaty,  which  you  sent  for  my  information  in  your  private 
letter  of  April  27. 

On  Tuesday  last  I  had  from  Lord  Lansdowne's  hands  a  copy 
( printed)  of  the  private  memorandum,  without  date,  which  has  been 
sent  to  you  by  Lord  Pauncefote.  At  our  next  interview,  on  the  fol- 
lowing day,  he  asked  me  if  I  had  read  it  and  what  I  thought  of  it. 
I  told  him  that  I  admired  the  friendly  spirit  and  evident  desire  to 
agree  which  were  manifest  on  the  face  of  the  paper.  But  I  told  him 
there  were  two  points  which  I  apprehended  you  would  regard  as  very 
debatable.  First,  his  new  Article  III-A  is  much  more  definite  and 
certain  than  the  eighth  article  of  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty,  and  I 
should  anticipate  objection  on  our  side  on  that  account.  I  called  his 
attention  to  the  fact  that  while  the  preamble  of  the  Clayton-Bulwer 
treaty  limits  the  object  and  subject  of  the  treaty  to  the  Nicaragua 
route  and  the  eighth  article  carefully  avoids  the  use  of  the  word 

1  Not  on  State  Department  files. 


32  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL. 

"  neutrality,"  but  merely  agrees  to  extend  the  "  protection  "  of  the  two 
Governments  to  other  routes,  and  that  in  granting  such  joint  "  pro- 
tection "  the  understanding  is  that  canals  by  another  route  shall  be 
open  on  equal  terms  to  the  subjects  and  citizens  of  the  two  nations 
and  of  every  other  State  which  is  willing  to  grant  the  same  "  protec- 
tion." All  of  which  was  extremely  vague  and  uncertain,  and  omitted 
the  "  guaranty  of  neutrality  ";  that  wanting  to  get  rid  of  the  Clayton- 
Bulwer  treaty  altogether,  we  shouldn't  want  to  make  any  part  of  it 
by  a  new  covenant  stronger  than  it  was  before.  Whereas  his  new 
Article  III-A  makes  the  eighth  article  a  great  deal  stronger  than  it 
was  before,  and  saying  nothing  about "  protection,"  which  is,  of  course, 
inapplicable  to  a  canal  wholly  American,  fastens  the  rules  of  neu- 
trality of  Article  III,  which  he  calls  "  stringent  rules,"  upon  all  future 
routes.  He  said  he  thought  Article  VIII  of  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty 
clearly  inferred  neutrality.  But  I  said  it  was  only  an  inference — 
the  word  used  was  "  protection."  (I  know  that  the  "  general  prin- 
ciple "  referred  to  in  the  eighth  article  is  recited  in  the  preamble  of 
the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty  and  of  your  new  "project"  and  of  his 
amended  draft  as  the  "  general  principle  "  "  of  neutralization,"  but 
it  seems  to  me  there  is  no  reason  why  we  should  make  it  any  stronger 
than  it  was  and  define  in  advance  the  exact  rules  to  be  applied  to  any 
future  canals.  However,  as  no  more  than  one  canal  will  ever  be 
built,  3^011  may  not  think  it  worth  while  to  take  any  such  point.) 

Secondly.  I  told  him  that  I  thought  his  amendment  of  the  first 
clause  of  the  third  article,  insisting  upon  bringing  in  other  nations 
as  parties  to  the  agreement  after  the  Senate  had  struck  out  of  the 
H.-P.  treaty  the  article  inviting  them  to  come  in,  would  seem  counter 
to  the  very  strong  conviction  in  the  Senate,  sustained,  as  I  believe, 
by  an  equally  strong  and  general  popular  conviction,  that  we  ought 
not  to  accord  to  other  nations  any  contract  rights  whatever  in  the 
canal  which  we  were  to  build  and  own;  that  none  of  them,  though 
invited,  ever  came  in  or  offered  to  come  in  under  the  C.-B.  treaty; 
that  at  present  they  had  no  rights ;  that  they  must  be  content  to  rely 
on  our  national  honor  to  keep  the  canal  open  to  them,  as  declared  in 
this  treaty  with  Great  Britain.  I  told  him  that  I  thought  he  had 
no  idea  of  the  intensity  of  the  feeling  in  the  Senate  and  the  Nation 
against  the  intervention  of  other  nations  in  our  affairs  such  as  this, 
especially  upon  any  footing  of  contract  right,  and  that  if  you  should 
conclude  that  this  clause  as  amended  by  him  does  give  them  such  a 
contract  right,  you  could  hardly  be  expected  after  the  Senate's 
former  action  to  accept  it  without  modification. 

I  said  to  him  that  I  supposed  his  mind  was  still  open  to  conviction, 
and  he  said,  oh,  yes;  of  course— Mr.  Hay's  project  was  only  tentative. 
He  asked  Lord  Pauncefote  to  sound  me,  and  I  have  made  these  sug- 
gestions in  the  hope  of  coining  to  an  agreement,  and  herewith  expect 
you  to  offer  your  counter  suggestions.  I  don't  really  see  why  they  in- 
sist on  lugging  in  the  other  nations.  The  reason  given  by  him  that 
Great  Britain  objects  to  being  bound  to  stringent  rules  of  neutral  con- 
duct not  equally  binding  upon  other  powrers  seems  to  me  without  sub- 
stance. It  is  we  that  are  bound  by  stringent  rules.  We  accord  to 
Great  Britain  clear  contract  rights  to  have  these  rules  observed  by  us 
as  owners  of  the  canal ;  and  the  other  nations  can  only  use  it  under  the 
same  rules. 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL.  33 

Great  Britain  has  something  to  give  us  in  exchange  for  this  agree- 
ment with  her — the  relinquishment  of  her  rights  under  the  C.-B. 
treaty — but  the  other  nations  part  with  us  and  no  such  consideration. 
I  also  told  Lord  Lansdowne,  in  respect  to  this  clause  1  of  article  3, 
that  in  one  respect  it  was  worse  than  the  provision  [art.  3]  of  the 
H.-P.  treaty  which  the  Senate  struck  out.  That  only  invited  the 
other  nations  to  come  in,  and  left  it  optional  with  them  to  stay  out, 
as  they  did  under  the  C.-B.  treaty,  but  this  actually  compels  them  to 
come  in  at  the  start.  They  can  not  use  the  canal,  as  I  read  it,  unless 
they  agree.  The  question  is  whether,  if  they  agree  as  he  proposes, 
they  would  become  parties  to  the  agreement  in  the  sense  in  which 
they  would  have  done  under  article  3  of  the  H.-P.  treaty,  which  the 
Senate  vetoed.  I've  not  had  time  to  study  this  question  carefully, 
but  my  present  strong  impression  is  that  they  would.  Lord  Lans- 
downe claims  to  desire  only  that  the  other  nations  parting  with  noth- 
ing should  not  be  on  a  better  footing  with  respect  to  the  canal  than 
Great  Britain,  who  parts  with  so  much,  and  that  she  shall  not  be 
bound  by  these  "  stringent "  rules  of  neutrality,  while  the  others  are 
not  so  bound.  I  think  they  are  practically  all  treated  alike  by  the 
instrument  as  you  have  drawn  it.  I  venture,  however,  to  suggest,  in 
view  of  his  amendment  of  clause  1,  article  3,  that  it  might  possibly 
meet  the  views  both  of  the  Senate  arid  the  British  Cabinet  if  you 
should  propose  further  to  amend  by  striking  out  the  words  "  agree  " 
and  "  so  agreeing,"  which  I  dislike  so  much,  considering  the  previous 
action  of  the  Senate,  and  make  it  read,  "  The  canal  shall  be  free  and 
open  to  the  vessels  of  commerce  and  war  of  all  nations  observing  these 
rules,"  etc. 

These  are  only  my  hasty  suggestions  after  having  Lord  Lans- 
downe's  papers  in  my  hands  for  only  two  busy  days.  I  told  him 
what  I  thought  because  he  wanted  to  know,  and  I  give  them  to  you 
for  what  they  are  worth.  Perhaps  you  will  not  agree  with  them  at 
all.  If  not,  no  harm  will  come;  but  if  you  and  the  Senators  whom 
you  may  consult  concur  in  this  objection  to  his  amendment  of  clause 
1,  article  3,  Lord  Lansdowne  will  be  prepared  to  have  you  dissent. 

I  think  it  must  be  conceded  that  Lord  Lansdowne  has  very  grace- 
fully yielded  on  the  main  point  that  was  covered  by  the  Davis  amend- 
ment in  subdivision  7,  page  5,  of  his  paper,  where  he  seems  to  con- 
strue the  new  draft  substantially,  I  think,  as  we  do.  He  recognizes 
"  our  desire  to  reserve  the  power  of  taking  measures  to  protect  the 
canal  at  any  time  when  we  are  engaged  in  war,"  that  "  contingencies 
may  arise  when  it  might  be  of  supreme  importance  to  the  United 
States  that  they  should  be  free  to  adopt  measures  for  the  defense 
of  the  canal  at  a  moment  when  they  were  themselves  engaged  in 
hostilities,"  and  "  the  necessity  " — and,  of  course,  the  right — "  of  the 
United  States  to  interfere  temporarily  with  the  free  use  of  the  canal 
by  the  shipping  of  another  power."  Whether,  however,  such  other 
power  would  thereupon  and  ipso  facto  become  liberated  from  the 
necessity  of  observing  the  rules  laid  down  in  the  "  war  treaty  "  I  am 
not  yet  prepared  to  say.  It  ought  not  even  in  war  to  be  at  liberty 
to  violate  clause  6  of  article  5. 

Upon  the  whole  the  prospect  of  a  satisfactory  settlement  of  this 
troublesome  matter  seems  to  me  better  than  it  has  ever  been  before, 

42112— S.  Doc.  474,  63-2 3 


34  DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OP    THE   PANAMA  CANAL. 

and  I  am  sure  that  you  will  appreciate  the  friendly  tone  of  Lord 
Lansdowne's  advances.  I  have  not  yet  seen  Lord  Pauncefote,  but 
have  an  appointment  with  him  for  Tuesday,  after  which  I  may 
write  to  you  again. 

Yours,  very  truly,  Joseph  H.  Choate. 

Mr.  Choate  to  Mr.  Hay. 

London,  August  20, 1901. 

Dear  Col.  Hay:  Yesterday  I  had  a  most  satisfactory  interview 
with  Lord  Pauncefote  about  the  canal  business,  with  the  result  that 
I  am  still  more  encouraged  to  hope  for  and  expect  a  final  draft  at  your 
hands  that  will  suit  both  Senate  and  British  cabinet.  I  went  over 
with  him  fully  the  two  points  which  I  had  discussed  with  Lord  Lans- 
downe  and  in  my  answer  to  you.  He  recognized  the  full  force  of 
what  I  had  to  say  as  to  the  inexpediency  of  inserting  the  words 
"  which  shall  agree  "  and  "  so  agreeing  "  in  clause  1  of  article  3,  after 
the  striking  out  by  the  Senate  of  Article  III  in  the  H.-P.  treaty.  He 
should  emphatically  favor  omitting  them,  and  thought  his  Govern- 
ment would  assent  to  the  omission,  and  he  seemed  to  agree  that 
making  it  read  "all  nations  -observing  the  rules"  etc.,  would  reach 
this  object,  which  is  that  Great  Britain  and  all  other  nations  should 
be  served  alike  and  be  on  an  equal  footing  as  to  obligation  to  observe 
the  neutrality  of  the  canal. 

I  also  gathered  from  what  he  said  that  the  new  Article  III-A  might 
be  modified  somewhat  to  meet  my  objection  that  it  not  only  confirmed 
the  general  principle  of  article  8  of  the  C.-B.  treaty  but  made  it  a 
great  deal  stronger  than  it  stands  in  that  treaty. 

Although  naturally  this  point  did  not  impress  him  as  much  as 
the  other.  But  the  more  thought  I  give  it  the  more  substantial  it 
seems.  As  article  8  stands  in  the  C.-B.  treaty  it  undoubtedly  con- 
templates further  treaty  stipulations — not  "  new  "  treaty  stipula- 
tions, in  case  any  other  interoceanic  route,  either  by  land  or  by  water, 
should  "prove  to  be  practicable,"  and  it  proceeds  to  state  that  the 
general  principle  to  be  applied  is  to  be,  viz,  no  other  charges  or 
conditions  of  traffic  thereon  "than  are  just  and  equitable,"  and  that 
said  "  canals  or  railways  "  being  open  to  the  subjects  and  citizens  of 
Great  Britain  and  the  United  States  on  equal  terms  shall  also  be  open 
on  like  terms  to  the  subjects  and  citizens  of  other  States,  by  which  I 
believe  to  be  the  real  general  principle  of  neutralization  (if  you 
choose  to  call  it  so)  intended  to  be  asserted  by  this  eighth  article  of 
the  C.-B.  treaty.  But  under  cover  of  reasserting  this  "  general  prin- 
ciple "  this  new  Article  III-A  instead  of  postponing  the  making  of 
new  treaty  stipulations  as  to  other  routes  until  some  other  route  by 
land  or  by  water  proves  to  be  practicable  immediately  and  for  all 
time  fastens  these  six  crystallized  rules  of  Article  III  upon  all  inter- 
oceanic communications  across  the  Isthmus  as  well  as  providing  that 
no  change  of  sovereignty  or  other  change  of  circumstances  shall  affect 
such  "  general  principle  or  the  obligations  of  the  high  contracting 
parties  under  the  present  treaty,"  and  I  shall  be  surprised  if  objec- 
tion is  not  encountered  in  the  Senate  to  this  result  of  making  the 
old  eighth  article  of  the  C.-B.  treaty  so  much  more  comprehensive, 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTOEY    OF    THE    PANAMA   CANAL.  35 

definite,  and  binding  than  it  was  before.  The  idea  "  change  of  sov- 
ereignty," of  course,  relates  to  the  report  of  an  intention  on  the  part 
of  the  United  States  to  acquire  a  strip  of  territory  on  each  side  of  the 
canal,  and  "  other  change  of  circumstances  "  is  aimed  at  the  argu- 
ment in  some  future  epoch  against  the  continuance  of  this  treaty 
that  has  often  been  directed  against  the  continued  binding  force  of 
the  C.-B.  treaty  that  "  change  of  circumstance  "  since  1850  has  put 
an  end  to  it. 

Lord  Lansdowne's  object  in  insisting  upon  Article  III- A  is  to  be 
able  to  meet  the  objectors  in  Parliament  by  saying  that  although 
they  have  given  up  the  C.-B.  treaty  they  have  saved  the  "  general 
principle,"  and  have  made  it  immediately  effective  and  binding  upon 
the  United  States  as  to  all  future  routes,  and  have  dispensed  with 
future  "  treaty  stipulations "  by  making  it  much  stronger  than  it 
was  before.  I  think  his  all-sufficient  answer  is  that  by  giving  up  the 
C.-B.  treaty,  which  stood  in  the  way  of  building  any  canal,  he  has 
insured  the  building  of  a  canal  for  the  benefit  of  Great  Britain  at 
the  expense  of  the  United  States,  relieved  Great  Britain  of  all 
responsibility  about  it  now  and  forever,  and  imposed  upon  the  United 
States  stringent  rules  of  neutrality  as  to  Great  Britain  and  all  man- 
kind. 

Assuming  that  some  such  article  must  be  retained,  how  would 
this  do  ? 

In  view  of  the  permanent  character  of  this  treaty,  whereby  the 
general  principle  established  by  article  8  of  the  C.-B.  treaty  is  re- 
affirmed, the  United  States  hereby  declares  (and  agrees)  that  it 
will  impose  no  other  charges  or  conditions  of  traffic  upon  any  other 
canal  that  may  be  built  across  the  Isthmus  (or  between  the  Atlantic 
and  Pacific  Oceans)  than  such  as  are  just  and  equitable,  and  that 
such  canals  shall  be  open  to  the  subjects  and  citizens  of  the  United 
States  and  of  all  other  nations  on  equal  terms. 

Lord  Pauncefote's  expectation  is  now  that  you  will  in  due  time 
answer  Lord  Lansdowne's  paper,  and  that  he  and  Lord  L.  will 
give  full  consideration  to  the  matter  in  time  to  enable  him  to 
bring  back  an  agreed  instrument  when  he  returns  in  October,  which 
1  sincerely  hope  may  be  the  case. 
Yours,  very  truly, 

Joseph  H.  Choate. 


Mr.  Hay  to  Mr.  Choate. 

[Telegram.] 

Department  of  State, 
Washington,  August  22,  1901. 
Lord  Lansdowne's  counter  draft  received  with  very  few  changes.1 
I  await  some  intimation  of  tenor  of  your  conversation  with  Lord 
Lansdowne  before  answering  Lord  Pauncefote. 

Hay. 

1  See  Marquis  of  Lansdowne's  note,  Aug.  3,   1901.     Ante. 


36  DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

Mr.  Hay  to  Mr.  Choate. 

[Extracts  from  private  letter  not  of  record;   original  not  on  department  flies.] 

Newbury,  N.  II.,  September  0,  1901. 

My  Dear  Mr.  Choate  :  I  went  to  Canton  immediately  on  receiving 
Lord  Lansdowne's  memorandum  and  consulted  the  President  about  it. 
You  can  understand  my  satisfaction,  on  returning  to  Washington  and 
receiving  your  letter  containing  your  conversation  with  Lord  Lans- 
downe  and  Lord  Pauncefote,  to  find  that  you  had  arrived  at  the  same 
conclusion  which  the  President  and  I  had  reached  and  that  you  saw 
a  possibility  of  our  views  being  taken  into  favorable  consideration  by 
the  British  Government.  I  have  written  a  brief  letter  to  Lord 
Pauncefote,  of  which  I  inclose  you  a  copy.  Your  views  are  so  clear 
and  definite  and  so  entirely  in  accord  with  my  own,  that  I  find  it  un- 
necessary to  give  you  any  extended  instructions  as  to  this  very  im- 
portant matter.  I  have,  as  you  will  see,  requested  Lord  Pauncefote 
to  confer  freely  with  you,  and  I  hope  you  will  be  able  to  go  into  the 
business  pretty  thoroughly  with  Lord  Lansdowne.  What  we  should 
wish,  best  of  all,  would  be  to  have  them  accept  our  project  just  as  it 
stands.  But  this  is  a  counsel  of  perfection  and  probably  unattain- 
able. They  have  treated  the  matter  in  a  friendly  and  generous 
spirit,  and  we  must  do  what  we  can  to  meet  them. 

If  they  will  not  accept  our  clause  1,  Article  III  as  it  is,  then  I 
think  your  proposition — "  observing  " — is  an  excellent  suggestion. 
I  do  not  see  how  they  could  object  to  it,  and  it  would  help  us  greatly 
here. 

As  to  the  additional  article,  we  must  try  to  get  it  modified.  It  is 
cumbrous,  vague,  and  mischievously  far-reaching.  The  suggestion  I 
make  to  Lord  Pauncefote  is  satisfactory  to  the  President  and  was  vir- 
tually presented  to  me  by  Lord  Pauncefote  himself  last  spring.  I 
would  rather  have  nothing  at  all  of  the  sort,  but  if  we  must  concede 
something  of  that  nature,  I  imagine  we  could  stand  what  I  have 
suggested. 

You  know  the  line  to  take  better  than  I  can  tell  you.  The  neces- 
sity of  the  canal;  the  interest  England  has  in  it;  the  advantage  to  her 
of  our  building  and  managing  it;  the  desire  of  the  President  to  get 
rid  of  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty  not  only  without  impairment  of  our 
good  relations  with  England,  but,  if  possible,  in  such  a  way  as  to 
make  them  more  intimately  friendly.  Press  the  considerations  you 
have  already  brought  forward  as  reported  in  your  letters  to  me.  I 
do  not  think  they  can  fail  to  impress  Lord  Lansdowne ;  he  is  too  in- 
telligent not  to  see  that  the  briefer  and  simpler  the  treaty  can  be 
made  the  better. 

I  am  profoundly  gratified  at  the  way  the  matter  now  presents  itself. 
Even  with  all  Lord  Lansdowne's  suggestions  accepted,  it  would  be  a 
great  success  to  have  gained  such  a  treaty.  But  we  must  do  our  best 
to  improve  it  still  further.  If  we  can  clean  up  that  Article  IV,  it 
will  be  a  great  piece  of  work  well  done. 

If  Lord  Pauncefote  brings  it  back  next  month  in  the  form  we  have 
indicated,  I  shall  be  ready  to  intone  my  nunc  dimittis. 
Yours,  faithfully, 

John  Hay. 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  37 

Mr.  Hay  to  Lord  Pauncefote. 

[Private  letter;  original  not  on  files  of  department.] 

Newbury,  N.  H.,  September  £, 1901. 

Dear  Lord  Pauncefote:  Immediately  on  receipt  of  your  letter 
transmitting  Lord  Lansdowne's  letter  to  you  of  the  3d  of  August,1 
and  his  private  memorandum  on  the  canal  treaty,  I  proceeded  to 
Canton  and  laid  the  papers  before  the  President.  He  regarded,  as  I 
had  done,  the  consideration  accorded  by  Lord  Lansdowne  to  my  draft 
of  a  new  treaty  as  in  the  highest  degree  friendly  and  reasonable,  and 
he  charged  me  to  express  to  you  his  appreciation  of  it. 

As  to  the  changes  suggested  by  Lord  Lansdowne,  while  they  may 
not  be  in  themselves  objectionable,  we  are  forced  to  regard  them  in 
the  light  of  the  previous  action  of  the  Senate,  and  of  the  probable 
discussion  to  which  they  would  give  rise.  And  although  this  is  a 
consideration  which  we  have  no  right  to  bring  forward  in  discussing 
a  matter  of  principle  with  a  friendly  power,  we  ourselves  must  always 
bear  in  mind  the  conditions  under  which  we  labor,  through  that  pro- 
vision of  our  Constitution  which  permits  one-third  of  the  Senate, 
plus  one,  to  veto  the  action  of  the  Executive  and  the  will  of  the 
majority  of  their  own  body  in  treaty  matters. 

I  am  apprehensive  that  the  first  amendment  proposed  to  clause  1 
of  Article  III,  amounting,  as  it  virtually  does,  to  the  restoration  of 
Article  III  of  our  former  treaty,  which  was  stricken  out  by  the  Sen- 
ate because  of  the  strong  objection  to  inviting  other  powers  to  become 
contract  parties  to  a  treaty  affecting  the  canal,  would  meet  with  great 
opposition.  If  His  Majesty's  Government  find  it  not  convenient  to 
accept  our  draft  as  it  stands,  they  might,  perhaps,  consider  favorably 
the  substitution  for  the  words  italicized  after  "  vessels  of  commerce 
and  of  war  of  all  nations  "  of  the  words  "  observing  these  rules,"  and 
instead  of  "  any  nation  so  agreeing"  the  words  "  any  such  nation." 
This,  it  seems  to  me,  would  accomplish  the  purpose  aimed  at  by  Lord 
Lansdowne,  with  less  likelihood  of  hostile  discussion  on  this  side. 
The  second  amendment  in  the  same  clause,  providing  that  conditions 
and  charges  of  traffic  shall  be  just  and  equitable,  is  acceptable  to  the 
President. 

Coming  to  the  article  numbered  III-A,  which  might,  perhaps,  as 
well  be  called  Article  IV,  I  can  not  help  seeing  in  it  a  formidable 
obstacle  to  the  acceptance  of  the  treaty.  I  considered  the  adoption 
by  the  Senate,  without  change,  of  the  preamble  of  our  former  treaty, 
by  which  it  was  declared  that  the  general  principle  of  neutralization 
established  in  Article  VIII  of  the  Clayton-Bulwer  convention  was  not 
impaired  thereby,  a  fortunate  circumstance,  as  it  enabled  us,  in  pass- 
ing a  new  draft,  to  retain  the  important  utterance  in  the  preamble  in 
the  same  form  to  which  the  Senate  had  already  given  its  assent.  To 
reiterate  this  in  still  stronger  language  in  a  separate  article,  and  to 
give  to  Article  VIII  of  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty  what  is,  in  my 
opinion,  a  wider  application  than  it  originally  had,  would,  I  fear, 
gravely  endanger  this  treaty.  I  doubt  if  it  would  pass  the  Senate 
without  amendment. 

1  See   Ante,    from   British    Blue   Book ;    not   on    State   Department   files. 


38  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

When  I  had  the  pleasure  of  conversing  with  your  excellency  on 
this  subject  in  the  spring,  you  made  a  suggestion  to  the  effect  that 
some  clause  should  be  inserted  providing  for  the  contingency  of  a 
change  in  sovereignty.  It  did  not  seem  to  me  necessary,  and  for  that 
reason  I  hoped  that  it  might  not  be  insisted  on.  But  if  it  should  seem 
indispensable  to  His  Majesty's  Government  that  such  an  article  should 
be  inserted,  would  it  not  be  sufficient  to  cover  the  point  in  some  brief 
and  simple  way  like  this : 

Article  IV. 

It  is  agreed  that  no  change  of  territorial  sovereignty  or  of  the 
international  relations  of  the  countries  traversed  by  the  before-men- 
tioned canal  shall  affect  the  general  principle  of  neutralization  or  the 
obligations  of  the  high  contracting  parties  under  the  present  treaty. 

I  should  be  greatly  obliged  if  your  excellency  would  talk  over  these 
matters  freely  with  Mr.  Choate,  who  is  in  possession  of  our  views,  and 
of  whose  good  will  I  need  not  assure  you.  I  beg  you  also  to  express 
to  Lord  Lansdowne  my  sincere  appreciation  of  the  friendly  and  mag- 
nanimous spirit  he  has  shown  in  his  treatment  of  this  matter,  and  my 
hope  that  we  may  arrive  at  a  solution  which  may  enable  us  to  start  at 
once  upon  this  great  enterprise  which  so  vitally  concerns  the  entire 
world,  and  especially  Great  Britain,  as  the  first  of  commercial  nations. 

I  am,  my  dear  Lord  Pauncefote, 
Faithfully,  yours, 

J.  Hay. 


Mr.  Choate  to  Mr.  Hay. 

[Extract.] 

London,  September  3, 1901. 
Dear  Col.  Hay:  The  more  I  reflect  upon  it  the  more  confident  I 
feel  that  striking  out  "  which  shall  agree "  and  "  so  agreeing,"  in 
clause  1  of  Article  III,  and  a  very  slight  modification  of  Article 
III-A  to  bring  it  back  to  the  real  meaning  of  Article  VIII  of  the 
C.-B.  treaty,  will  produce  a  result  that  will  suit  everybody  or  at  least 
ought  to.  I  saw  a  recent  notice  that  Lord  Salisbury  would  go  to 
the  Continent  for  his  autumn  holiday  about  the  third  week  of  Sep- 
tember which  probably  means  a  month's  absence,  and  October,  as  you 
know,  is  quite  a  holiday  month  here,  but  such  slight  change-  should, 
I  think,  be  easily  settled  by  correspondence  unless  their  plan  requires 
a  cabinet  meeting. 


The  Marquis  of  Landsdowne  to  Mr.  Lowth*  r.1 

Foreign  Office,  September  /..,  1901. 
Sir:  I  have  to  inform  you  that  I  have  learned  from  Lord  Paunce- 
fote that  Mr.  Hay  has  laid  before  the  President  the  memorandum,  a 
copy  of  which  was  forwarded  to  you  in  my  despatch  of  the  3d  August. 

1  British  Blue  Book  "  United  States,   1902,  No.  1." 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  39 

Mr.  McKinley  regarded,  as  did  Mr.  Hay,  the  consideration  shown 
to  the  last  proposals  of  the  United  States  Government  relative  to 
the  interoceanic  canal  treaty  as  in  the  highest  degree  friendly  and 
reasonable. 

With  regard  to  the  changes  suggested  by  His  Majesty's  Govern- 
ment, Mr.  Hay  was  apprehensive  that  the  first  amendment  proposed 
to  clause  1  of  Article  III  would  meet  with  opposition  because  of  the 
strong  objection  entertained  to  inviting  other  powers  to  become 
contract  parties  to  a  treaty  affecting  the  canal.  If  His  Majesty's 
Government  found  it  not  convenient  to  accept  the  draft  as  it  stood, 
they  might  perhaps  consider  favourably  the  substitution  for  the 
words  "the  canal  shall  be  free  and  open  to  the  vessels  of  commerce 
and  of  war  of  all  nations  which  shall  agree  to  observe  these  rules" 
the  words  "the  canal  shall  be  free  and  open  to  the  vessels  of  com- 
merce and  of  war  of  all  nations  observing  these  rules,"  and  instead 
of  "  any  nation  so  agreeing  "  the  words  "  any  such  nation."  This  it 
seemed  to  Mr.  Hay,  would  accomplish  the  purpose  aimed  at  by  His 
Majesty's  Government. 

The  second  amendment  in  the  same  clause,  providing  that  condi- 
tions and  charges  of  traffic  shall  be  just  nnd  equitable,  was  accepted 
by  the  President. 

Coming  to  article  numbered  III-A,  which  might  be  called  Article 
IV,  Mr.  Hay  pointed  out  that  the  preamble  of  the  draft  treaty 
retained  the  declaration  that  the  general  principle  of  neutralization 
established  in  Article  VIII  of  the  Clayton-Bulwer  convention  was  not 
impaired.  To  reiterate  this  in  still  stronger  language  in  a  separate 
article,  and  to  give  to  Article  VIII  of  the  Clayton-Bulwer  convention 
what  seemed  a  wider  application  than  it  originally  had,  would,  Mr. 
Hay  feared,  not  meet  with  acceptance. 

If,  however,  it  seemed  indispensable  to  His  Majesty's  Government 
that  an  article  providing  for  the  contingency  of  a  change  in  sover- 
eignty should  be  inserted,  he  thought  it  might  state  that: 

It  is  agreed  that  no  change  of  territorial  sovereignty  or  of  the  international 
relations  of  the  country  traversed  by  the  before  mentioned  canal  shall  affect  the 
general  principle  of  neutralization  or  the  obligation  of  the  high  contracting 
parties  under  the  present  treaty. 

This  would  cover  the  point  in  a  brief  and  simple  way. 
In  conclusion,  Mr.  Hay  expressed  his  appreciation  of  the  friendly 
and  magnanimous  spirit  shown  by  His  Majesty's  Government  in  the 
treatment  of  this  matter,  and  his  hope  that  a  solution  would  be 
attained  which  would  enable  the  United  States'  Government  to  start 
at  once  upon  the  great  enterprise  which  so  vitally  concerned  the  whole 
world,  and  especially  Great  Britain,  as  the  first  of  commercial  nations. 
I  am,  etc., 

Lansdowne. 


Mr.  Choate  to  Mr.  Hay. 

Confidential.]  American  Embassy, 

London,  September  20,  1901. 

(Received  5.40  p.  m.) 
Have  had  long  interview  with  British  ambassador  at  Washington. 
British  minister  for  foreign  affairs  still  absent  in  Ireland.     British 


40  DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OP   THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

ambassador  at  Washington  thinks  amendments  of  clause  1,  Article 
III,  striking  out  "  which  shall  agree  to  observe  "  and  substituting  "  ob- 
serving "  and  striking  out  "  so  agreeing,"  will  be  acceptable.  Assum- 
ing this,  would  you  not  consent  to  add  to  your  Article  IV,  in  letter  to 
British  ambassador  at  Washington,  if  accepted  as  a  substitute  for 
III-A,  these  words : 

Or  the  freedom  of  the  canal  to  the  vessels  of  commerce  and  war  of  all 
nations  on  terms  of  entire  equality  and  without  discrimination,  as  provided 
hy  article  3. 

He  apprehends  that  without  this  addition  your  IV  might  be  re- 
garded as  limited  to  technical  neutrality  and  as  not  including  free- 
dom of  passage  and  equality  of  terms.  I  thought  you  had  no  such 
idea;  that  taking  all  your  language  in  IV  you  meant  it  include  all 
that  is  in  your  telegram,  adding  that  if  not  included  in  "  general 
principles  of  neutralization,"  it  certainly  is  in  obligation  of  parties 
under  treaty.  With  this  addition  he  would  approve  and  thinks  could 
carry  it  through.  Certainly  this  would  get  rid  of  all  obnoxious 
features  of  eighth  article,  C  B,  and  of  British  minister  of  foreign 
affairs,  III-A,  and  put  in  their  place  substantially  what  you  propose. 

Choate. 


Mr.  Choate  to  Mr.  Hay. 

Private  and  confidential.]  September  21,  1901. 

Dear  Col.  Hay:  .In  re  canal  treaty.  I  regret  to  say  that  Lord 
Lansdowne,  who  left  on  the  17th  for  Ireland,  has  not  as  yet  been 
accessible  for  a  conference,  and  I  fear  will  not  be  until  October.  He 
was  to  have  come  on  the  19th  to  attend  the  service  at  the  Abbey,  but 
unfortunately  he  had  another  sharp  attack  of  sciatica,  which  pre- 
vented. Both  Lord  Pauncefote  and  I  had  hoped  that  he  would 
come  and  remain  here  a  few  days  to  enable  us  to  advance,  if  not  to 
dispose  of,  this  important  matter.  But  I  have  had  a  full  discussion 
of  the  matter  with  Lord  Pauncefote,  which  has,  I  think,  materially 
advanced  it  and  which  resulted  in  my  confidential  cipher  cable  of 
yesterday,  of  which  I  inclose  a  copy.  It  is  needless  to  say  that  I 
found  Lord  Pauncefote  very  reasonable.  I  pressed  upon  him  your 
great  desire,  if  possible,  to  restore  clause  1  of  Article  III  to  the  form 
you  originally  proposed,  eliminating  Lord  Lansdowne's  amendment 
altogether,  except  the  clause  as  to  just  and  equitable  charges  and  con- 
ditions. But  he  thought  the  idea  of  amending  it  had  gone  too  far  to 
dispense  with  it  altogether.  He  had  sent  to  Lord  Lansdowne  your 
letter  to  him  of  September  2,  and  both  he  and  I  thought  that  the  best 
that  could  be  done  was  what  you  there  propose,  viz,  to  strike  out  after 
"  nations  "  the  words  "  which  shall  agree  to  observe  "  and  substitut- 
ing therefor  "  observing,"  and  in  the  next  line  to  strike  out  the  words 
"  any  nation  so  agreeing "  and  to  substitute  therefor  "  any  such 
nation." 

As  to  Article  III-A,  proposed  by  Lord  Lansdowne,  Lord  Paunce- 
fote realizes,  I  think,  the  full  force  of  our  objections  to  it,  as  I  stated 
them  to  him  before  and  repeated  to  you  in  my  former  letter.  I  told 
him  emphatically  that  meaning  to  get  rid  of  the  Clayton-Bulwer 
treaty  altogether  we  did  not  want  to  have  Article  VIII  of  that 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  41 

treaty  fastened  upon  us  forever  in  a  more  intensified  form,  and  as 
to  any  and  all  future  interoceanic  communication,  with  these  crys- 
tallized rules,  dissenting  with  any  future  negotiation  about  the  mat- 
ter when  it  should  arise  at  some  distant  day.  I  told  him  how  you 
and  President  McKinley  had  raised  the  same  objections  on  first 
reading  Lord  Lansdowne's  paper,  and  without  a  word  from  me  yet 
received.  Rather  to  my  surprise  he  yielded  very  readily  on  the  point 
of  the  future  canal  or  other  interoceanic  communication,  which,  to 
my  mind,  was  the  worst  part  of  it.  He  said  that  the  only  two  pos- 
sible routes  for  a  canal  were,  he  was  satisfied,  the  Panama  route  and 
the  Nicaragua  route;  and  that  the  Panama  route  was  so  hedged  about 
by  many  treaties  with  several  powers  and  that  without  their  con- 
sent nothing  in  the  direction  of  our  wishes  could  be  done,  and  that 
it  was  sufficient  in  this  treaty  to  provide  for  the  Nicaragua  route. 
This  I  thought  a  decided  advance.  He  no  longer  insisted  upon  the 
words  "  or  other  change  of  circumstances  "  not  affecting  the  treaty, 
against  my  insistence  that  there  might  be  changes  of  circumstances 
which  would  affect  or  even  nullify  a  treaty;  that  there  was  such  a 
principle  of  international  law,  which  we  can  not  let  go;  that  what 
such  change  of  circumstances  might  be  is  not  determined,  nor  was 
it  easy  to  foresee  what  change  of  circumstances  might  come  upon 
the  United  States  in  the  next  hundred  years.  But  he  said  they  could 
not  give  up  Article  III- A  altogether ;  that  it  was  quite  obvious  that 
we  might  in  the  future  acquire  all  the  territory  on  both  sides  of  the 
canal ;  that  we  might  then  claim  that  a  treaty  providing  for  the 
neutrality  of  a  canal  running  through  a  neutral  country  could  no 
longer  apply  to  a  canal  that  ran  through  American  territory  only; 
and  he  again  insisted,  as  Lord  Lansdowne  had  insisted,  that  they 
must  have  something  to  satisfy  Parliament  and  the  British  public 
that  in  giving  up  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty  they  had  retained  and 
reasserted  the  "  general  principle "  of  it,  that  the  canal  should  be 
technically  neutral  and  should  be  free  to  all  nations  on  "terms  of 
equality,  and  especially  that  in  the  contingency  supposed,  of  the 
territory  on  both  sides  of  the  canal  becoming  ours,  the  canal,  its 
neutrality,  its  being  free  and  open  to  all  nations  on  equal  terms  should 
not  be  thereby  affected ;  that  without  securing  this  they  could  not 
justify  the  treaty  either  to  Parliament  or  the  public;  that  the  pre- 
amble which  had  already  passed  the  Senate  was  not  enough,  al- 
though he  recognized  the  full  importance  of  the  circumstance  of  its 
having  so  passed. 

I  then  called  his  attention  to  your  Article  IV  in  your  letter,  which 
did  seem  to  me  to  cover  and  secure  all  that  he  now  claimed  and 
insisted  on.  He  said  no;  that  it  only  preserved  the  principle  of  neu- 
tralization, which,  it  might  be  insisted  on,  did  not  include  freedom 
of  passage  for  all  nations  and  equality  of  terms,  and  that  without 
an  explicit  provision,  which  should  leave  that  freed  from  doubt,  he 
could  not  expect  to  sustain  it  before  the  Parliament  and  people. 
I  insisted  that  those  ideas  were  already  included  in  your  IV,  i.  e., 
within  the  words  "  the  general  principle  of  neutralization,"  espe- 
cially in  the  light  of  that  phrase  as  used  in  the  preamble,  where  it 
is  "neutralization  established  in  Article  VIII  of  the  C.-B.  treaty"; 
that  if  not  included  within  that  it  certainly  was  in  the  phrase  "  obli- 
gations of  the  high  contracting  parties  under  this  treaty,"  for  what 
could  be  clearer  than  our  obligation  by  Article  III  to  keep  it  open 


42  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

and  on  terms  of  equality  as  provided  there,  and  what  your  IV 
meant  was  that  no  change  of  territorial  sovereignty  should  affect 
any  of  the  obligations  of  the  present  treaty,  including  that.  He  still 
insisted  that  it  should  not  be  left  to  the  construction  of  general 
clauses,  but  should  be  explicitly  stated.  Believing,  as  I  do,  that  you 
had  no  thought  of  escaping  from  the  obligations  of  Article  III,  clause 
1,  in  any  such  contingency  as  change  of  territorial  sovereignty,  and 
that  you  had  intended  it  to  be  included  in  your  language  in  IV,  I 
wrote  down  the  words  "  or  the  freedom  of  passage  of  the  canal  to 
the  vessels  of  commerce  and  of  war  of  all  nations  on  terms  of  entire 
equality  and  without  discrimination,  as  provided  by  Article  III,"  and 
asked  him  if  those  words  were  added  to  your  IV,  it  would  satisfy 
him  as  a  substitute  for  Lord  Lansdowne's  III-A.  He  said  it  would, 
and  that  with  those  words  added  the  treaty  could,  he  thought,  be 
sustained  before  Parliament  and  the  British  public;  that  he  should 
approve  it,  and  he  thought  Lord  Lansdowne  could  and  would,  al- 
though it  would  have  to  be  submitted  to  the  cabinet  or  to  a  majority 
of  its  members.  This  seemed  to  bring  the  matter  to  a  very  satis- 
factory point  so  far  as  we  could  go,  and  I  agreed  to  cable  our  result 
to  you,  in  the  hope  of  getting  your  approval  before  he  submitted 
it  to  Lord  Lansdowne.  I  did  not  give  him  the  words  I  wrote  on 
paper,  but  said  I  would  cable  them  to  you.  (Memo. — I  observe  that 
in  the  brevity  of  my  cable  I  omitted  the  words  "  and  without  dis- 
crimination," but  I  don't  see  that  the  omission  affects  the  meaning 
at  all,  as  it  is  all  included  in  the  words  "  on  terms  of  entire  equality, 
as  provided  by  Article  III."  But  if  on  reading  this  you  think  it  does 
make  a  difference,  please  cable  me.)  It  still  looks  to  me  most  pro- 
pitious for  a  satisfactory  conclusion  being  reached. 
Yours,  very  truly, 

Joseph  H.  Choate. 


Mr.  Bay  to  Mr.  Choate. 

[Telegram.] 

Department  of  State, 
Washington,  September  21, 1901. 
Yours  20th  received.  The  President  cordially  approves  draft  of 
canal  treaty  and  your  instructions.  I  do  not  consider  the  proposed 
addition  to  article  4  as  necessary  or  as  improving  the  article,  but  if 
the  British  Government  strongly  insists  you  may  accept  it.  I  think 
we  are  to  be  congratulated  on  this  happy  conclusion  of  the  matter. 

Hay. 


Mr.  Choate  to  Mr.  Hay. 

London,  September  25,  1901. 
Dear  Col.  Hay:  I  received  your  cipher  dispatch  of  the  21st  on 
Sunday  the  22d,  instructing  that  if  the  British  Government  strongly 
insisted  on  the  proposed  addition  to  article  4,  I  might  accept  it,  and 
that  you  thought  we  were  to  be  congratulated  on  this  happy  conclu- 
sion of  the  matter. 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  43 

It  can  hardly  be  regarded  as  concluded  yet,  for  it  is  one  thing  to 
satisfy  Lord  Paimcefote,  and  quite  another  to  satisfy  Lord  Lans- 
downe  and  the  cabinet,  especially  the  lord  chancellor. 

On  Monday,  the  23d,  I  had  an  interview  with  Lord  Pauncefote 
and  tried,  as  I  had  before,  to  persuade  him  that  it  was  neither  wise 
nor  necessary  to  mar  your  Article  IV  by  the  addition  proposed  in 
my  cable  to  you.  But  he  thought  as  he  did  before,  and  more  strongly 
than  he  did  before,  that  with  the  addition  Parliament  and  the 
British  press  and  public  could  be  made  to  accept  the  treaty,  but  that 
without  it  they  could  not,  and  so  with  the  members  of  the  Govern- 
ment. He  thought  it  very  necessary  that  they  should  be  able  to  say 
very  emphatically  that  although  they  had  abrogated  the  Clayton- 
Bulwer  treaty,  they  had  preserved  the  principle  of  it.  I  rather  think 
he  was  a  good  deal  governed  by  the  old  English  maxim  of  never 
giving  anything  for  nothing,  and  he  wanted  to  have  some  equivalent, 
or  apparent  equivalent,  for  giving  up  the  "  other  interoceanic  com- 
munication." So  I  gave  him  the  words  that  I  cabled  to  you,  and  he 
seemed  to  think  that  the  words  "  and  without  discrimination,"  did 
not  alter  the  meaning  and  he  left  them  out.  I  judged  from  your 
cable  that  you  agreed  with  me  that  the  words  proposed  to  be  added 
did  not  really  alter  the  meaning  of  your  4,  but  only  added  a 
specification  of  what  was  there  included  in  general  terms.  He  was 
not  willing  to  have  it  rest  upon  the  construction  of  general  words, 
and  wished  to  be  able  to  point  to  the  specific  language  as  removing 
all  doubt.  The  same  ground  was  again  gone  over  as  in  our  former 
interview.  He  undertook  to  report  our  conversation  to  Lord  Lans- 
downe  immediately,  and  hopes  for  a  speedy  answer  and  a  favorable 
one.  Meantime,  hearing  that  Senator  Lodge  was  coming  here  on 
Friday,  and  thinking  it  might  be  well  to  enlist  him  at  this  stage,  I 
cabled  to  you  asking  if  I  should  show  him  the  papers  up  to  date.  I 
recalled,  then,  when  he  was  here  in  June,  he  appeared  not  to  have 
seen  the  language  of  your  original  project,  but  had  only  a  general 
idea  of  its  substance.  I  have  Dr.  Hill's  answer,  "  treaty  may  be 
communicated  to  Lodge  confidentially."  I  think  it  will  be  very 
wise  to  do  so. 

I  am  very  much  delighted  with  your  statement  that  the  President 
cordially  approves  draft  of  canai  treaty  and  my  instructions.  I 
knew  that  he  would  and  have  every  confidence  in  his  wisdom  and 
discretion.  The  general  disposition  here  toward  us  just  now  is  bet- 
ter than  ever,  and  I  have  every  hope  that  a  favorable  result  will  be 
reached  here.  There  may  be  some  delay.  Lord  Lansclowne  is  not 
very  well  and  will  stay  in  Ireland  till  October  1,  and  the  members  of 
the  Cabinet  are  scattered  to  the  four  winds,  not  to  return,  I  suppose, 
till  about  the  same  time. 

By  the  way,  I'm  afraid  that  in  my  last  I  misinterpreted  Lord 
Pauncefote's  idea  about  the  Panama  route  being  hedged  in  by  treaties 
so  that  it  was  not  necessary  to  provide  about  that  in  this  treaty.  I 
asked  him  to  state  it  again,  and  it  was  not,  as  I  wrote,  that  the 
Panama  route  was  so  hedged  about  by  treaties  "  that  nothing  in  the 
direction  of  our  wishes  could  be  done  without  the  consent  of  the 
powers  who  were  parties,"  etc.,  but  that  the  various  treaties  did  so 
effectually  secure  the  neutrality  of  that  route  that  they  had  stamped 
the  principle  of  neutrality  so  irrevocably  upon  it  that  it  was  not 
necessary  to  secure  it  by  this  treaty ;  that  even  if  we  should  acquire 


44  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

the  Panama  route,  that  we  should  take  it  cum  onere;  and  he  said 
that  in  fact  our  whole  program  about  any  canal  was  to  have  it  neu- 
tral. He  evidently  will  impress  himself  very  strongly  upon  Lord 
Lansdowne  to  the  effect  that  no  provision  about  any  other  canal  is 
necessary  in  this  treaty. 


Yours,  very  truly, 


Joseph  H.  Choate. 


Mr.  Choate  to  Mr.  Hay. 
Confidential.] 

American  Embassy, 

London,  September  27,  1901. 

(Received  12.55  p.  m.) 

[Telegram.] 

Lord  Pauncefote  now  finds  he  was  mistaken  about  existing  treaty 
satisfactorily  securing  neutrality  of  canal  by  Panama  route,  as 
stated  in  my  letters  of  21st  and  25th.  Is  also  disturbed  by  late  re- 
ports of  our  perhaps  adopting  that  route  in  preference  to  Nicaragua 
and  fears  that  treaty  as  drawn  might  be  claimed  to  cover  Nicaragua 
route  only,  leaving  Panama,  if  adopted,  unprovided  for.  Do  you 
not  regard  treaty  as  drawn  by  you  as  applying  to  the  canal  which 
shall  be  built  by  whatever  route? 

Lord  Lansdowne  has  arrived.  Please  consider  nothing  settled  until 
he  is  heard  from.     Shall  write  to-morrow. 

Choate. 


Mr.  Choate  to  Mr.  Hay. 

London,  September  27,  1901. 
Dear  Col.  Hay  :  Lord  Pauncefote  called  upon  me  yesterday  to  say 
that  upon  an  examination  of  the  existing  treaties  bearing  upon  a 
canal  by  the  Panama  route,  he  found  he  was  mistaken  in  what  he 
said  to  me  the  other  day,  and  that  there  were  no  provisions  satisfac- 
torily securing  the  neutralization  of  the  canal.  He  also  called  my 
attention  to  an  elaborate  article  in  yesterday's  Times,  which  I  inclose, 
the  last  paragraph  of  which  seemed  somewhat  to  imperil  his  "  gen- 
eral principle  of  neutralization."  He  also  alluded  to  the  rumors 
now  very  rife  here  that  we  might  after  all  decide  to  acquire  and 
complete  a  canal  by  the  Panama  route  and  abandon  the  Nicaragua 
route  altogether,  in  which  case  it  had  been  suggested  to  him  by  some 
of  the  experts  at  the  foreign  office  that  it  might  be  claimed  that  our 
treaty  as  it  now  stands  is  for  a  canal  by  the  Nicaragua  route  only 
and  does  not  apply  at  all  to  the  Panama  route,  which,  of  course,  as 
he  said  would  place  the  British  Government  in  the  most  ridiculous 
position  of  having  signed  a  treaty  abrogating  the  Clayton-Bulwer 
treaty,  and  yet  having  no  reference  to  the  canal  that  we  were  ac- 
tually proceeding  to  build.  He  could  not  conceal  his  disturbance  of 
mind  at  this  suggestion.  I  told  him  I  was  sure  you  had  no  such 
idea  as  that,  or  of  putting  them  in  such  a  predicament — that,  of 
course,  this  had  always  been  called  the  Nicaragua  Canal  treaty; 
that  the  original  H.-P.  treaty  was  for  a  Nicaragua  canal,  because  it 
left  the  C.-B.  treaty  with  its  preamble  and  its  eighth  article  in  force ; 
but  that  by  the  plain  reading  of  this  treaty,  abrogating  the  C.-B. 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  45 

treaty,  and  retaining  no  reference  to  any  particular  route,  it  would 
apply  to  the  first  canal  that  we  should  build  by  whichever  route,  and 
that  there  was  so  little  possibility  of  any  second  canal  being  built  that 
it  was  not  worth  while  to  think  about  it  or  to  provide  for  it,  and  this 
I  think  was  his  own  view.  I  saw  him  again  to-day,  and  he  was  just 
going  to  see  Lord  Lansdowne,  who  has  unexpectedly  come  to  London. 
He  has  prepared  a  memorandum  to  submit  to  Lord  L.,  showing  the 
propriety  of  their  accepting  your  4  for  his  3A.  If  they  adhere  to  the 
point  suggested,  as  raised  at  the  foreign  office,  he  may  want  to  insert 
a  few  words  in  the  preamble  or  elsewhere  to  remove  all  doubt  that  it 
is  to  apply  to  the  canal  we  actually  first  build  by  whichever  route. 
On  conference  with  him  I  sent  .you  to-day  the  confidential  cipher 
cable,  of  which  I  inclose  a  copy.  Lord  Pauncefote  is  quite  hopeful 
of  satisfying  Lord  Lansdowne  to  adopt  4  as  amended. 


Mr.  Hay  to  Mr.  Choate. 

[Telegram.] 

Confidential.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  September  29, 1901. 
I  think  it  hardly  conceivable  that  any  other  route  than  Nicaragua 
will  be  chosen.  The  House  of  representatives  has  declared  for  it 
by  a  vote  of  two  to  one,  and  the  Senate  is  apparently  of  the  same 
mind;  but  whatever  route  shall  be  chosen  I  think  our  draft  of  treaty 
pledges  us  to  adopt  the  principle  of  neutralization  therein  set  forth, 
as  you  will  observe  that  no  particular  route  is  mentioned.  I  am 
anxious  that  the  treaty  shall  not  be  overloaded  by  any  specific  en- 
gagements, which  may  give  occasion  to  our  opponents  to  say  we  are 
abrogating  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty  with  one  hand  and  reenacting  it 
with  the  other. 

Hay. 


Mr.  Hay  to  Mr.  Choate. 

[Telegram.] 

Confidential.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  October  2, 1901. 
Second.  Our  intention  is  that  the  treaty  shall  cover  all  isthmian 
routes,  and  we  consider  that  this  object  is  attained  by  our  draft.     I 
am  authorized  by  the  President  to  say  this. 

Hay. 


Mr.  Choate  to  Mr.  Hay. 

[Telegram.] 

Confidential.]  American  Embassy, 

London,  October  2, 1901. 

(Received  8.05  p.  m.) 
Interview  with  the  minister  for  foreign  affairs  yesterday.    He  had 
received  memorandum  from  Lord  Pauncefote   and   personally  ap- 


46  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL. 

proves  the  treaty,  with  the  amendments  next  stated,  and  will  submit 
it  to  the  premier  and  his  colleagues  in  the  cabinet  with  least  possible 
delay. 

Amendments : 

Preamble,  line  3,  after  "Atlantic  and  Pacific  Oceans,"  insert  "  by 
whatever  route  may  be  deemed  expedient."  This  insisted  on  by 
Lord  Pauncefote. 

Article  3,  line  1,  for  "  said  ship  canal "  read  "  such  ship  canal." 

Article  3,  line  4,  for  "which  shall  agree  to  observe  these  rules" 
read  "  observing  these  rules." 

Article  3,  line  6,  for  "any  nation  so  agreeing"  read  "any  such 
nation." 

For  article  3 A  substitute : 

Art.  4.  It  is  agreed  that  no  change  of  territorial  sovereignty  or  of  the  inter- 
national relations  of  the  country  or  countries  traversed  by  such  ship  canal  shall 
affect  the  general  principle  of  neutralization  or  the  obligation  of  the  high  con- 
tracting parlies  under  the  present  treaty,  or  the  freedom  of  passage  of  the 
canal  to  the  vessels  of  commerce  and  of  war  of  all  nations  on  terms  of  entire 
equality  as  provided  by  article  3. 

"  Of  the  country  or,"  suggested  by  Senator  Lodge  and  approved 
by  me  and  by  Lord  Lansdowne.  "  Such  ship  "  for  "  the  before  men- 
tioned," Lord  Lansdowne's.    Article  4  becomes  article  5. 

I  promised  to  submit  these  for  your  immediate  approval ;  said  I 
thought  them  unobjectionable.  They  have  certainly  been  more  than 
considerate.  If  j'ou  object  to  any  phraseology  cable  me  immediately; 
otherwise  your  entire  approval.  Hope  for  the  approval  of  the  pre- 
mier and  the  lord  chancellor,  which  would.  I  think,  be  conclusive, 
though  no  cabinet  meeting  till  November. 

Have  gone  through  whole  matter  with  Senator  Lodge,  who  ap- 
proves absolutely  and  thinks  it  will  pass  Senate. 

Choate. 

Mr.  Choate  to  Mr.  Hay. 

London,  October  2.  1901. 
Dear  Col.  Hay:  I  was  very  glad  of  the  opportunity  to  place  the 
present  position  of  the  canal  treaty  before  Senator  Lodge,  with  whom 
I  went  through  the  whole  matter  very  carefully  on  Monday,  and  he 
approved  of  it  as  last  amended  absolutely,  and  authorized  me  to  say 
so  in  my  cable  of  to-day.  You  can  rely  upon  his  strenuous  support 
in  the  Senate.  The  insertion  in  the  preamble  after  the  words 
"Atlantic  and  Pacific  Oceans,"  of  the  words  "  by  whatever  route  may 
be  considered  expedient,"  which  are  insisted  on  by  Lord  Pauncefote 
to  remove  all  doubt  that  the  treaty  applies  to  the  canal  we  actually 
build,  whether  by  the  Nicaragua  or  the  Panama  route,  Mr.  Lodge  liked 
and  thought  rather  an  improvement,  and  I  could  see  no  objection. 
His  position,  however,  seems  to  differ  from  yours  as  to  the  possibility 
of  Panama  being  adopted  as  the  route.  He  thinks  there  will  be 
quite  a  strong  movement  in  that  direction.  His  views  on  Lord  Lans- 
downe's original  amendment  to  article  3,  clause  1,  by  which  the  other 
nations  were  required  to  come  in  as  agreeing  parties,  were  in  full 
accord  with  ours,  and  he  emphatically  approves  (he  amendment  strikj 
ing  out  the  "  agree  "  and  "  agreeing  "  and  substituting  "  observing 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OP    THE    PANAMA   CANAL.  47 

these  rules."  He  also  saw  the  full  force  of  our  objection  to  Lord 
Lansdowne's  3A  and  heartily  approves  your  IV  as  a  substitute  for 
3A,  with  the  amendment  to  it  prepared  by  Lord  Pauncefote  and  me 
and  authorized  by  you.  All  this  with  Mr.  Lodge,  of  course,  in  abso- 
lute confidence. 

Before  seeing  Mr.  Lodge,  and  upon  the  receipt  of  your  cable  on 
Sunday,  I  had  communicated  to  Lord  Pauncefote  your  conviction  as 
to  the  extreme  improbability  of  any  Panama  route,  and  how  strong 
both  Senate  and  House  were  for  Nicaragua,  and  your  agreement  with 
him  and  me  as  to  the  necessary  construction  of  the  treaty,"as  drawn  by 
you,  as  applying  to  the  canal  we  shall  first  build  by  whichever  route. 
He  still  clung  to  the  necessity  of  adding  a  few  words  to  make  the 
meaning  unmistakable.  Hence  the  insertion  of  "  by  whatever  route 
may  be  considered  expedient "  in  the  preamble.  He  spoke  of  some 
utterance  of  Mr.  Blaine,  to  the  effect  that  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty 
had  no  reference  whatever  to  a  canal  by  the  Panama  route,  as  an 
additional  reason  for  being  very  precise  this  time. 

Yesterday  I  had  an  interview  with  Lord  Lansdowne  who  had 
already  received  and  considered  Lord  Pauncefote's  memorandum  ad- 
vocating the  amendments  in  which  we  concurred,  and  I  am  happy  to 
say  that  he  had  no  fault  to  find  with  them.  He  thought  them  satis- 
factory— personally  approved  of  them,  and  would  submit  them  to 
Lord  Salisbury  and  his  colleagues  in  the  cabinet,  and  hoped  for 
their  approval.  So  I  hadn't  to  argue  the  case  with  him  at  all.  He 
recalled  my  former  argument  as  to  the  impossibility  of  our  giving 
other  nations  a  "  contractural  right "  in  the  canal,  and  thought  the 
amendment  to  article  3,  clause  1,  which  Lord  Pauncefote  and  I  had 
arranged  was  quite  right.  He  also  recognized  our  objections  to 
TII-A  and  was  ready  to  accept  as  a  substitute  your  4,  as  amended  at 
Lord  Pauncefote's  request.  I  thanked  him  very  much  for  this,  as 
substantially  bringing  the  parties  together  and  ending  the  long  con- 
troversy so  far  as  you  and  he  could  do  it.  I  told  him  of  Mr.  Lodge's 
suggestion  to  say  "  country  or  countries  "  in  four  instead  of  "  coun- 
tries," inasmuch  as  by  one  route,  the  Nicaragua,  there  were  two  coun- 
tries, Costa  Rica  and  Nicaragua,  while  by  the  other  there  was  only 
one,  and  he  thought  the  change  should  be  made.  He  thought  at  first 
that  my  added  words  "  or  the  freedom  of  passage,"  etc.,  would  not 
run  smoothly  and  grammatically  after  your  words  "  high  contracting 
parties  under  this  treaty,"  but,  on  trying,  he  found  they  did  and  was 
satisfied.  He  promised  to  send  me  a  memorandum  of  the  exact 
words  of  each  amendment  approved  by  him.  which  he  has  done  this 
morning. 

I  pressed  upon  him  the  urgency  of  getting  the  treaty  to  a  point  as 
soon  as  possible,  the  great  desirableness  of  having  it  ready  for  the 
President  to  send  to  the  Senate  on  the  first  Monday  of  December, 
which,  he  noted,  was  December  2.  I  told  him  that  it  would  be  neces- 
sary to  have  it  in  the  President's  hands  a  good  while  before  that,  and 
that  you  confidently  hoped  that  Lord  Pauncefote  would  be  able  to 
bring  it  over  in  October.  He  promised  to  do  the  best  he  could  as 
to  time,  would  send  it  at  once  to  Lord  Salisbury  and  the  lord  chan- 
cellor, whom  I  consider  the  most  important  men  in  the  matter.  Cer- 
tainly if  we  get  their  concurrence  with  him,  they  will  carry  the  cabi- 
net. He  said  Lord  Salisbury  did  not  like  to  be  troubled  much  with 
such  things  at  Beaulieu,  but  under  the  circumstances  he  would  send 


48  DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

it  to  him  at  once  and  ask  for  an  early  answer,  and  would  hunt  up  the 
lord  chancellor,  who  has  been  spending  his  vacation  on  the  Continent, 
but  is  now,  I  think,  somewhere  near  London. 

I  am  sure  that  in  this  whole  matter,  since  the  receipt  by  him  of 
your  new  draft,  Lord  Lansdowne  has  been  most  considerate  and  more 
than  generous.  He  has  shown  an  earnest  desire  to  bring  to  an 
amicable  settlement,  honorable  alike  to  both  parties,  this  long  and 
important  controversy  between  the  two  nations.  In  substance,  he 
abrogates  the  Claytoh-Bulwer  treaty,  gives  us  an  American  canal — 
ours  to  build  as  and  where  we  like,  to  own,  control,  and  govern — on 
the  sole  condition  of  its  being  always  neutral  and  free  for  the  passage 
of  the  ships  of  all  nations  on  equal  terms,  except  that  if  we  get  into 
a  Avar  with  any  nation  we  can  shut  its  ships  out  and  take  care  of 
ourselves. 

I  shall  be  disappointed — in  fact,  mortified — if  now,  after  Great 
Britain  has  met  us  so  manfully^  we  fail  to  come  to  a  final  agreement. 
Very  truly,  yours, 

Joseph  A.  Choate. 


Mr.  Hay  to  Mr.  Choate. 

[Telegram.] 

Department  or  State, 

Washington,  October  3,  1901. 

All  amendments  cordially  approved. 

Hay. 


Mr.  Choate  to  Mr.  Hay. 

London,  October  9,  1901. 
Dear  Col.  Hay:  I  called  on  Lord  Lansdowne  yesterday  in  the 
hope  of  learning  that  he  had  heard  from  some  other  of  his  colleagues 
to  whom  he  had  submitted  the  treaty  besides  the  Lord  Chancellor, 
but  he  had  not.  Vacation  is  still  the  paramount  interest,  and  why 
not;  for  they  did  not  get  away  until  after  the  middle  of  August. 
However,  he  was  most  sanguine,  said  he  apprehended  no  difficulty, 
and  that  I  might  go  away  with  a  light  heart.  "  The  most  pessimis- 
tic view,"  he  said,  "  might  be  some  verbal  suggestions  or  change  of 
some  very  minor  detail."  He  said  that  this  matter  had  been  dis- 
cussed so  much  among  them  that  he  knew  the  minds  of  his  colleagues 
in  regard  to  it,  and  seemed  to  have  no  doubt  of  their  approval.  His 
plan  seemed  to  be  to  get  the  approval  of  four  or  five  of  his  leading 
colleagues,  and  then  to  submit  it  to  the  others,  with  the  sanction  of 
their  approval;  all  of  which,  of  course,  will  take  considerable  time, 
and  there  is  to  be  no  cabinet  meeting,  to  which,  I  suppose,  it  will 
have  to  be  formally  submitted,  until  November.  Lord  Lansdowne 
himself  left  last  night  for  Scotland  for  about  a  week.  He  showed  me 
a  print  of  the  text  as  he  had  submitted  it  to  his  colleagues.  There 
were  one  or  two  verbal  differences  from  that  which  I  cabled  you,  but 
which  are  of  absolutely  no  moment ;  for  instance,  in  "  four  "  he  had 
not  substituted  "such  ship  canal"  for  "the  before-mentioned  canal," 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA   CANAL.  49 

which  he  had  himself  suggested  and  had  sent  me  in  writing  as  an 
amendment,  and  the  words  inserted  in  the  preamble  after  "Oceans" 
are  "  by  whatever  route  may  be  considered  expedient  "  instead  of 
"  decided  expedient,"  as  I  had  the  word  of  absolutely  identical  mean- 
ing. Doubtless  after  all  is  arranged  it  will  be  left  for  you  and  Lord 
Pauncefote  to  revise  the  verbiage  of  the  text.  I  saw  Lord  Paunce- 
fote  yesterday  after  my  interview  with  Lord  Lansdowne.  He,  like 
Lord  L..  thinks  there  is  no  doubt  of  the  satisfactory  result,  and 
hopes  to  bring  the  treaty  settled  home  with  him  on  the  26th.  on  which 
day  he  will  certainly  sail.  They  both  seem  to  know  Lord  Salisbury's 
mind  pretty  well,  and  expect  no  difficulty  from  that  quarter,  though 
he  may  take  his  time  in  attending  to  it.  Lord  Pauncefote  suggested, 
and  Lord  L.  seemed  to  concur,  that  when  the  treaty  was  in  final 
shape  it  would  be  a  good  opportunity  for  you  to  offer  it  as  finally 
settled,  with  a  memorandum  showing  why  you  regarded  it  as  satis- 
factory and  expedient  for  the  United  States,  and  for  him  to  supply 
you  with  a  similar  memorandum  showing  why  it  was  regarded  as 
satisfactory  to  Great  Britain,  thus  giving  each  a  chance  to  explain 
it  to  his  constituents.  Of  course,  a  name  will  have  to  be  given  to  the 
treaty  by  you  and  Lord  Pauncefote.  I  should  think  it  would  not  be 
bad  to  call  it  just  as  it  is,  "  Convention  superseding  the  convention  of 
19th  April,  1850,  and  providing  for  the  building  under  the  auspices 
of  the  United  States  of  a  neutral  ship  canal."  The  first  clause  would 
commend  it  to  the  Senate,  though  standing  alone  it  would  not  be 
approved  here. 

In  this  situation,  as  I  do  not  see  anything  likely  to  be  required  of 
me  that  may  not  be  just  as  well  done  by  Mr.  White,  who  knows 
your  mind  and  mine  exactly,  and  has  been  fully  advised  of  all  that 
has  been  done,  I  propose  to  keep  my  long  cherished  purpose  of  sail- 
ing on  the  Philadelphia  on  Saturday,  the  12th,  unless  something  to 
the  contrary  turns  up  in  the  meantime.  Quite  possibly  I  may  hear 
before  Saturday  that  Lord  Salisbury  has  approved.  I  do  not  really 
expect  that  there  will  be  anything  to  be  done  but  to  notify  you  that 
the  Government  agrees  to  the  treaty,  as  Lord  Lansdowne  expects 
them  to  do. 

The  publication  yesterday  of  the  substance  of  the  treaty  with  a 
most  distorted  gloss  is  most  unfortunate,  but  I  do  not  think  it  will 
do  any  serious  harm.    I  inclose  the  most  mischievous  cable  and  edi- 
torial from  yesterday's  Chronicle. 
Yours,  most  truly, 

Joseph  H.  Choate. 


Mr.  Choate  to  Mr.  Hay. 

[Telegram.] 

Confidential.]  American  Embassy, 

London.  October  !>.  1901. 

(Received  8.48  p.  m.) 
Expect  to  sail  next  Saturday.     Lord  Lansdowne  is  very  confident 
that  his  colleagues  will  approve.     So  is  Lord  Pauncefote,  who  will 
sail  2Gth.    Everybody  away.    It  takes  much  time. 

Choate. 

42112— S.  Doc.  474,  63-2 4 


50  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA   CANAL. 

Mr.  White  to  Mr.  Hay. 

[Telegram.] 

American  Embassy, 
Confidential.]  London,  October  23,  1901. 

(Received  7.05  p.  m.) 
I  had  an  interview  with  British  minister  for  foreign  affairs  to-day 
at  his  request.  He  officially  informed  me  that  His  Majesty's  Govern- 
ment are  prepared  to  negotiate  an  Isthmian  Canal  treaty  on  the  terms 
already  communicated  to  you  by  Mr.  Choate,  with  one  exception, 
viz :  They  will  not  press  for  addition  to  article  4,  but  prefer  omis- 
sions of  following  words :  "  or  the  freedom  of  passage  of  the  canal  to 
the  vessels  of  commerce  and  of  war  of  all  nations  on  terms  of  entire 
equality  as  provided  by  article  3."  In  view  of  your  telegram  Sep- 
temper  21,  I  replied  that  these  words  will  accordingly  be  omitted. 
Lord  Lansdowne  added  that  Lord  Pauncefote,  who  sails  next  Satur- 
day, will  be  in  a  position  to  settle  details  with  you  as  to  arrangement 
of  documents  for  future  publication  showing  how  present  arrange- 
ment was  arrived  at. 

White. 


The  Marquis  of  Lansdowne  to  Lord  Pauncefote.1 

Foreign  Office,  October  23, 1901. 

My  Lord:  I  informed  the  United  States  charge  d'affaires  to-day 
that  His  Majesty's  Government  had  given  their  careful  attention  to 
the  various  amendments  which  had  been  suggested  in  the  draft  inter- 
oceanic  canal  treaty,  communicated  by  Mr.  Hay  to  your  lordship  on 
the  25th  April  last,  and  that  I  was  now  in  a  position  to  inform  him 
officially  of  our  views. 

Mr.  Hay  had  suggested  that  in  Article  III,  rule  1,  we  should  sub- 
stitute for  the  words  "the  canal  shall  be  free  and  open  to  the  vessels 
of  commerce  and  of  war  of  all  nations  which  shall  agree  to  observe 
these  rules,"  etc.,  the  words  "  the  canal  shall  be  free  and  open  to  the 
vessels  of  commerce  and  of  war  of  all  nations  observing  these  rules,'' 
and  in  the  same  clause,  as  a  consequential  amendment,  to  substitute 
for  the  words  "  any  nation  so  agreeing  "  the  words  "  any  such  nation." 
His  Majesty's  Government  were  prepared  to  accept  this  amendment, 
which  seemed  to  us  equally  efficacious  for  the  purpose  which  we  had 
in  view,  namely,  that  of  insuring  that  Great  Britain  should  not  be 
placed  in  a  less  advantageous  position  than  other  powers,  which  they 
stopped  short  of  conferring  upon  other  nations  a  contractual  right 
to  the  use  of  the  canal. 

We  were  also  prepared  to  accept,  in  lieu  of  Article  III-A.the  new 
Article  IV  proposed  by  Mr.  Hay.  which,  with  the  addition  of  the 
words  "  or  countries  "  proposed  in  the  course  of  the  discussions  here, 
runs  as  follows : 

It  is  agreed  that  no  change  of  territorial  sovereignty  or  of  the  international 
relations  of  the  country  or  countries  traversed  by  the  before-mentioned  canal 
shall  affect  the  general  principle  of  neutralization  or  the  obligation  of  the  high 
contracting  parties  under  the  present  treaty. 

1  British  Blue  Book,  United   States,   1902. 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA   CANAL.  51 

I  admitted  that  there  -was  some  force  in  the  contention  of  Mr. 
Ha}T,  which  had  been  strongly  supported  in  conversation  with  me  by 
Mr.  Choate,  that  Article  III-A,  as  drafted  by  His  Majesty's  Govern- 
ment, gave  to  Article  VIII  of  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty  a  wider 
application  than  it  originally  possessed. 

In  addition  to  those  amendments,  we  proposed  to  add  in  the  pre- 
amble after  the  words  "  being  desirous  to  facilitate  the  construction 
of  a  ship  canal  to  connect  the  Atlantic  and  Pacific  Oceans,"  the 
words  "by  whatever  route  may  be  considered  expedient,"  and  "such 
ship  canal "  for  "  said  ship  canal "  in  the  first  paragraph  of  Article 
III,  words  which,  in  our  opinion,  seemed  to  us  desirable  for  the  pur- 
pose of  removing  any  doubt  which  might  possibly  exist  as  to  the 
application  of  the  treaty  to  any  other  interoceanic  canals  as  well  as 
that  through  Nicaragua. 

I  handed  to  Mr.  White  a  statement  showing  the  draft  as  it  origi- 
nally stood  and  the  amendments  proposed  on  each  side. 
I  am,  etc., 

Lansdowne. 


Mr.  White  to  Mr.  Hay. 

[Personal — Confidential — Not   of  record — Extracts.] 

Confidential.]  American  Embassy, 

London,  October  £6y  1901. 

Dear  Mr.  Secretary  :  Lord  Lansdowne  asked  me  to  call  upon  him 
at  the  foreign  office  on  the  23d  instant,  which  I  did.  He  said  that 
his  object  in  asking  me  to  come  to  see  him  was  that  he  might  in- 
form me,  which  it  afforded  him  much  pleasure  to  do,  that  His 
Majesty's  Government  was  prepared  to  conclude  a  new  Isthmian 
Canal  treaty  on  the  terms  which,  after  having  been  discussed  be- 
tween himself  and  Mr.  Choate,  had  been  finally  agreed  upon  by 
them — and  he  added  that  he  wished  me  to  understand  that  he  made 
the  communication  officially — subject,  however,  to  one  exception,  viz., 
that  they  would  not  press  for  the  inclusion  in  the  treaty  of  the  pro- 
posed addition  to  Article  IV  of  the  following  words:  "or  the  free- 
dom of  passage  of  the  canal  to  the  vessels  of  commerce  and  of  war 
of  all  nations  on  terms  of  entire  equality,  as  provided  by  Article  III." 

Lord  Lansdowne  said  that  the  Government,  after  considering 
these  words,  had  arrived  at  the  conclusion  that  they  were  of  no  par- 
ticular advantage,  and  being  desirous  of  keeping  the  treaty  as  free 
as  possible  from  any  unnecessary  phraseology  which  might  lead  to 
controversy  in  the  Senate,  they  thought  it  best  to  omit  the  proposed 
addition  aforesaid.  I  replied  that  as  they  had  only  been  inserted  to 
meet  the  views  of  His  Majesty's  Government,  and  I  knew  (having  in 
mind  your  cablegram  to  Mr.  Choate  of  September  21)  that  you  did 
not  consider  the  words  in  question  either  necessary  or  as  improving 
the  article,  I  was  quite  sure  that_you  would  be  glad  to  hear  that  this 
Government  had  arrived  at  the  same  conclusion  and  that  the  pro- 
posed addition  would,  therefore,  subject  to  your  approval,  be  omitted. 

Lord  Lansdowne  suggested  before  I  left  him,  as  he  had  previously 
done  to  the  ambassador,  that  it  would  be  necessary  for  the  two  Gov- 
ernments  to   agree   upon   the   series   of   documents 1   which   should 

1  See  British  Blue  Book,  "  United  States.  1002,"  and  Senate  Document  746,  61st  Cong., 
3d  sess. 


52  DIPLOMATIC    HISTOEY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL. 

eventually  be  laid  before  Parliament  and  Congress  showing  how 
the  agreement  to  negotiate  the  new  treaty  had  been  arrived  at,  and 
that  Lord  Pauncefote,  who  sails  to-day,  would  be  furnished  with  his 
views  on  the  subject  and  be  in  a  position  to  settle  the  question  with 
you  on  his  arrival. 

I  also  inclose  a  confidential  paper  which  Lord  Lansdowne  marked 
in  my  presence  and  handed  to  me  showing  the  paragraph  which  is 
now  to  be  omitted.  I  observe  that  in  Article  IV  the  word  "  before- 
mentioned  "  is  used  instead  of  "  such  "  before  "  ship  canal,"  whereas 
in  a  memorandum  sent  to  Mr.  Choate  by  Lord  Lansdowne,  on  the  1st 
instant,  of  the  proposed  amendments,  the  word  "  such  "  is  used,  but 
it  does  not  appear  to  be  material  and  I  have  not  called  the  attention 
of  the  foreign  office  thereto,  feeling  that  you  will  be  able  to  do  so 
when  discussing  the  final  draft  with  Lord  Pauncefote  if  you  deem  it 
necessary  or  important. 
I  have,  etc., 

Henry  White. 


Mr.  II ay  to  Lord  Pauncefote. 

Washington,  November  8,  1901. 

Excellency  :  Upon  your  return  to  Washington,  I  had  the  honor 
to  receive  from  you  a  copy  of  the  instruction  addressed  to  you  on 
the  23d  October  last 1  by  the  Marquis  of  Lansdowne,  accepting  and 
reducing  to  final  shape  the  various  amendments  in  the  draft  of  an 
Interoceanic  Canal  treaty,  as  developed  in  the  course  of  the  negotia- 
tions lately  conducted  in  London,  through  Mr.  Choate,  with  yourself 
and  Lord  Lansdowne. 

The  treaty  being  thus  brought  into  a  form  representing  a  complete 
agreement  on  the  part  of  the  negotiators,  has  been  submitted  to  the 
President,  who  approves  of  the  conclusions  reached  and  directs  me 
to  proceed  to  the  formal  signature  thereof. 

I  have,  accordingly,  the  pleasure  to  send  you  a  clear  copy  of  the 
text  of  the  treaty,  embodying  the  several  modifications  agreed  upon. 
Upon  being  advised  by  you  that  this  text  correctly  represents  your 
understanding  of  the  agreement  thus  happily  brought  about,  the 
treaty  will  be  engrossed  for  signature  at  such  time  as  may  be  most 
convenient  to  you. 
I  have,  etc., 

John  Hay. 


Lord  Pauncefote  to  the  Marquis  of  Lansdowne.2 

Washington,  November  19,  1901. 
My  Lord:  I  have  the  honor  to  report  that,  by  appointment  with 
Mr.  Hay,  I  yesterday  went  to  the  State  Department,  accompanied  by 
Mr.  Wyndham,  and  signed  the  new  treaty  for  the  construction  of  an 
interoceanic  canal. 
I  have,  etc. 

Pauncefote. 

1  Printed,  ante.  -  British  Blue  Book  "United  States,   1902." 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL.  53 

[Telegraphic] 

Lord  Pauneefote  to  the  Marquis  of  Lansdowne.1 

Washington,  December  16,  1901. 
Canal  treaty  ratified  by  72  votes  to  6  in  Senate  to-day. 


Lord  Pauneefote  to  the  Marquis  of  Lansdowne.1 

Washington,  November  18,  1901. 
My  Lord:  I  have  the  honor  to  transmit  to  your  lordship  herewith 
a  copy  of  a  communication  from  Mr.  Hay.  dated  the  8th  November, 
formally  placing  on  record  the  President's  approval  of  the  various 
amendments  made  in  the  draft  of  the  new  interoceanic  canal  treaty 
in  the  course  of  the  negotiations,  and  particularly  set  forth  in  your 
lordship's  dispatch  to  me  of  the  23d  October. 
I  have.  etc. 

Pauncefote. 


[Inclosure  in  No.  5.] 

Mr.  Hay  to  Lord  Pauneefote. 

Washington.  November  8,  1901. 

Excellency:  Upon  your  return  to  Washington  I  had  the  honor  to 
receive  from  you  a  copy  of  the  instruction  addressed  to  you  on  the 
23d  October  last  by  the  Marquis  of  Lansdowne,  accepting  and  reduc- 
ing to  final  shape  the  various  amendments  in  the  draft  of  an  inter- 
oceanic canal  treaty,  as  developed  in  the  course  of  the  negotiations 
lately  conducted  in  London,  through  Mr.  Choate,  with  yourself  and 
Lord  Lansdowne. 

The  treaty,  being  thus  brought  into  a  form  representing  a  complete 
agreement  on  the  part  of  the  negotiators,  has  been  submitted  to  the 
President,  who  approves  of  the  conclusions  reached,  and  directs  me 
to  proceed  to  the  formal  signature  thereof. 

I  have,  accordingly,  the  pleasure  to  send  you  a  clear  copy  of  the 
text  of  the  treaty,  embodying  the  several  modifications  agreed  upon. 
Upon  being  advised  by  you  that  this  text  correctly  represents  your 
understanding  of  the  agreement  thus  happily  brought  about,  the 
treaty  will  be  engrossed  for  signature  at  such  time  as  may  be  most 
convenient  to  you. 
I  have,  etc. 

John  Hay. 


[Personal — Not  of  record — Original   not  in  department  files.] 

Department  of  State, 
W<r*7i/'nf/fon,  December  12,  1901. 
My  Dear  Mr.  Cullom  :  The  treaty  with  England  in  respect  to  the 
construction  of  a  ship  canal  between  the  Atlantic  and  Pacific  Oceans, 

1  British  Blue  Book  "  United  States,  1902." 


54  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

which  the  President  has  sent  to  the  Senate,  is  the  result  of  careful 
negotiations  conducted  between  the  two  Governments  since  the  re- 
ceipt of  Lord  Lansdowne's  dispatch  of  the  22d  of  February  last, 
whereby  His  Majesty's  Government  declined  to  accept,  for  the  rea- 
sons therein  stated,  the  former  convention  of  February  5,  1900,  as 
amended  by  the  Senate  on  the  20th  of  January,  1901.  Under  the 
instructions  of  the  President  I  have  signed  on  behalf  of  the  United 
States  the  treaty  now  prepared. 

The  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty  of  1850,  which  contemplated  the  con- 
struction of  a  canal  under  the  joint  auspices  of  the  two  Govern- 
ments, to  be  controlled  by  them  jointly,  its  neutrality  and  security 
to  be  guaranteed  by  both,  was  almost  from  the  date  of  its  ratification 
the  subject  of  frequent  discussion  and  occasional  irritation  between 
the  two  Governments.  Nearly  half  a  century  elapsed  without  any 
step  being  taken  by  either  toward  carrying  it  into  practical  effect 
by  the  construction  of  a  canal  under  its  provisions.  Instead  of  be- 
ing, as  was  intended,  an  instrument  for  facilitating  the  construction 
of  a  canal  it  became  a  serious  obstacle  in  the  way  of  such  construc- 
tion. In  the  meantime  the  conditions  which  had  existed  at  the  time 
of  its  ratification  had  wholly  changed.  The  commerce  of  the  world 
had  multiplied  many  fold.  The  growth  of  the  United  States  in 
population,  resources,  and  ability  had  been  greater  still.  The  occu- 
pation and  development  of  its  Pacific  coast  and  its  commercial  ne- 
cessities upon  the  Pacific  Ocean  created  a  state  of  things  hardly 
dreamt  of  at  the  date  of  the  treaty.  At  last  the  acquisition  of  the 
Hawaiian  and  the  Philippine  Islands  rendered  the  construction  of 
the  canal  a  matter  of  imperative  and  absolute  necessity  to  the  Gov- 
ern nent  and  people  of  the  United  States,  and  a  strong  national 
feeling  in  favor  of  such  construction  arose,  which  grew  with  the 
progress  of  events  into  an  irrevocable  determination  to  accomplish 
that  object  at  the  earliest  possible  moment. 
/The  incident  of  one  of  our  great  ships  of  war  lying  in  the  North 
Pacific,  being  ordered  to  join  our  fleet  in  the  West  Indies  in  time 
of  actual  war,  and  being  obliged  for  that  purpose  to  round  Cape 
Horn,  when  through  an  isthmian  canal  she  could  in  much  less  than 
half  the  time  have  reached  the  scene  of  action  in  which  she  was 
destined  to  take  part,  was  an  unanswerable  illustration  of  the  urgent 
and  immediate  need  of  such  a  canal  for  the  protection  and  safety 
of  the  interests  of  the  United  States.  But  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty 
stood  in  the  way.  Great  Britain  did  not  manifest,  and  it  is  believed 
did  not  entertain,  the  remotest  idea  of  joining  or  aiding  in  such  a 
work.  The  United  States  was  able  to  bear  alone  the  entire  cost  of 
the  canal,  but  was  apparently  prohibited  by  the  existing  treaty  from 
undertaking  the  enterprise  which,  although  carried  out  at  its  own 
expense,  would  redound  to  the  benefit  of  the  world's  commerce  quite 
as  much  as  to  its  own  advantage.  The  President,  loyal  to  treaty 
obligations,  was  unwilling  to  countenance  any  demand,  however 
widespread,  for  proceeding  with  the  construction  of  the  canal  until 
he  could  obtain  by  friendly  negotiation,  on  which  he  confidently 
relied,  the  consent  of  Great  Britain  to  the  abrogation  of  the  Clayton- 
Bulwer  treaty,  or  such  a  modification  of  its  terms  as  would  enable 
the  United  States  untrammeled  to  enter  upon  the  great  work  whose 
successful  accomplishment  was  vitally  necessary  to  its  own  security, 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL.  55 

and  would  benefit  the  people  of  all  other  nations  according  to  their 
respective  interests  in  the  commerce  of  the  world./ 

Such  was  the  situation  in  which  the  negotiations  for  the  super- 
session of  the  treaty  were  commenced  and  have  been  conducted,  and 
Ave  can  not  but  recognize  the  fair  and  friendly  spirit  in  which  the 
successive  overtures  of  the  United  States  toward  that  end  have  been 
met  by  Great  Britain.  It  has  been  my  firm  and  constant  hope 
throughout  these  negotiations  that  a  solution  of  this  difficult  and 
important  question  between  the  two  Governments  would  finally  be 
reached  which,  instead  of  disturbing  the  amicable  relations  which 
have  recently  existed  and  ought  always  to  exist  between  the  United 
States  and  Great  Britain,  would  make  them  more  friendly  still,  and 
I  believe  that  the  treaty  now  presented,  if  finally  established,  will 
have  this  desired  effect. 

It  is  unnecessary  to  recall  the  discussions  and  negotiations  which 
resulted  in  the  making  of  the  treaty  of  February  .1.  1900,  its  deliber- 
ate consideration  by  the  Senate,  the  amendments  proposed  by  that 
body  as  a  condition  of  its  ratification  by  the  United  States,  and  its 
rejection  as  so  amended  by  the  British  cabinet. 

In  rejecting  the  amended  treaty,  in  the  memorandum  of  February 
22,  1901.  Lord  Lansdowne  gave  evidence  of  the  sincere  desire  of  His 
Majesty's  Government  to  meet  the  views  of  the  United  States  and 
earnestly  deprecated  any  final  failure  to  come  to  an  understanding 
on  this  important  subject. 

Eeciprocating  these  friendly  intentions  and  determined,  if  possible, 
to  devise  a  form  of  treaty  which  should  reconcile  the  conflicting  views 
which  had  proved  fatal  to  that  of  1900,  I  prepared  and  submitted 
to  Lord  Pauncefote  in  March  last,  for  the  consideration  of  his  Gov- 
ernment, a  project  for  a  treaty  which,  after  long  and  careful  con- 
sideration and  negotiation,  has  been  so  perfected  as  to  receive  the 
approval  both  of  the  President  and  of  the  British  Government  in  the 
form  now  presented. 

The  points  on  which  there  was  failure  to  agree  in  the  former 
treaty  consisted  of  the  amendments  proposed  by  the  Senate  and  were 
three  in  number : 

First.  The  insertion  of  the  clause  relating  to  the  Clayton-Bulwer 
treaty  "  superseding  "  the  same. 

Second.  The  addition  of  the  clause  providing  that  the  stipulations 
and  conditions  of  the  first  five  clauses  of  the  third  article,  as  to  the 
neutrality  of  the  canal,  should  not  "  apply  to  measures  which  the 
United  States  may  find  it  necessary  to  take  for  securing  by  its  own 
forces  the  defense  of  the  United  States  and  the  maintenance  of 
public  order."  and 

Third.  The  omission  of  the  invitation  to  other  powers  to  adhere 
to  the  treaty  when  ratified. 

Although  on  all  three  of  these  important  points  the  opposing 
views  of  the  Senate  and  of  the  British  Government  were  most  em- 
phatic, I  deemed  it  not  impossible  that  a  project  might  be  framed 
which  would  satisfy  both,  without  a  sacrifice  of  any  essential  prin- 
ciple on  either  side  and  that  the  supreme  importance  of  the  end  in 
view  would  justify  the  attempt. 

In  the  new  draft  of  treaty  the  clause  superseding  the  Clayton- 
Bulwer  treaty  was  made  the  subject  of  a  separate  article  and  was 


56  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

submitted  to  the  consideration  of  the  British  Government  upon 
terms  which  would  permanently  secure  the  neutrality  of  the  canal 
for  the  use  of  all  nations  on  terms  of  entire  equality  and  at  the  same 
time  would  relieve  Great  Britain  of  all  responsibility  and  obligation 
to  enforce  the  conditions  which,  by  the  former  treaty,  had  been  im- 
posed upon  or  assumed  by  her  jointly  with  the  United  States.  And 
to  this  end  instead  of  the  provision  that  the  United  States  alone 
adopted  them  and  undertook  the  whole  of  that  burden. 

Second.  No  longer  insisting  upon  the  language  of  the  amendment, 
which  had  in  terms  reserved  to  the  United  States  express  permission 
to  disregard  the  rules  of  neutrality  prescribed  when  necessary  to 
secure  its  own  defense — which  the  Senate  had  apparently  deemed 
necessary  because  of  the  provision  in  rule  1  that  the  canal  should  be 
free  and  open  "  in  time  of  war  as  in  time  of  peace  "  to  the  vessels  of 
all  nations — it  was  considered  that  the  omission  of  the  words  "  in 
time  of  war  as  in  time  of  peace  "  would  dispense  with  the  necessity 
of  the  amendment  referred  to,  and  that  war  between  the  contracting 
parties  or  between  the  United  States  and  any  other  power  would 
have  the  ordinary  effect  of  war  upon  treaties  and  would  remit  both 
parties  to  their  original  and  natural  right  of  self-defense  and  give 
to  the  United  States  the  clear  right  to  close  the  canal  against  the 
other  belligerent  and  to  protect  it  by  whatever  means  might  be 
necessary. 

Third.  While  omitting  to  invite  other  nations  to  adhere  to  the 
treaty  when  ratified,  and  so  to  acquire  contract  rights  in  the  canal, 
it  was  thought  that  the  provision  that  the  canal  should  be  free  and 
open  to  all  nations  on  terms  of  entire  equality,  now  that  Great 
Britain  was  relieved  of  all  obligation  to  defend  such  neutrality, 
would  practically  meet  the  objection  which  had  been  made  by  Lord 
Lansdowne  to  the  Senate's  third  amendment,  viz,  that  Great  Britain 
was  thereby  placed  in  a  worse  position  than  other  nations  in  case 
of  war. 

Fourth.  In  view  of  the  facts  that  the  enormous  cost  of  construct- 
ing the  canal  w7as  to  be  borne  by  the  United  States  alone;  that  when 
constructed  the  canal  was  to  be  the  absolute  property  of  the  United 
States,  and  to  be  managed,  controlled,  and  defended  by  it;  and 
that  now  by  the  new  project  the  whole  burden  of  maintaining  its 
neutrality  and  security  was  thrown  upon  the  United  States,  it  was 
deemed  fair  to  omit  the  prohibition  contained  in  the  former  treaty 
forbidding  the  fortification  of  the  canal  and  the  waters  adjacent. 

Fifth.  The  sixth  clause  of  article  3  was  retained,  which  provides 
that  "in  time  of  war  as  in  time  of  peace"  the  canal  itself  shall  en- 
joy complete  immunity  from  attack  or  injury  by  belligerents,  in  the 
belief  that  such  a  provision  was  in  the  general  interest  of  commerce 
and  civilization,  and  that  all  nations  should  and  would  regard  such 
a  work  as  sacred  under  all  circumstances. 

With  the  exception  of  the  changes  above  enumerated,  which  were 
made  to  reconcile  conflicting  views,  care  was  taken  to  preserve  in  the 
new  draft  the  exact  language  which  had  already  passed  the  Senate 
without  objection,  and  so  far  as  known  without  criticism.  The  draft 
of  the  new  treaty  was  transmitted  by  Lord  Pauncefote  to  Lord  Lans- 
downe. and  its  treatment  by  him  manifested  a  most  conciliatory  spirit 
and  an  earnest  desire  to  reach  a  conclusion  which  should  be  satis- 
factory to  the  United  States,  if  this  could  be  done  without  departing 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  57 

from  the  great  principle  of  neutrality,  including  the  use  of  the  canal 
by  all  nations  on  equal  terms,  for  which  Great  Britain  had  always 
contended. 

/After  months  of  careful  deliberation  he  announced  the  readiness 
of  himself  and  his  colleagues  to  approve  the  form  and  substance  of 
the  new  treaty,  with  certain  amendments  hereinafter  referred  to. 
He  recognized  the  important  bearing  upon  all  the  questions  involved 
of  the  change  by  which  Great  Britain  was  to  be  relieved  of  all  the 
burden  and  responsibility  of  maintaining  the  neutrality  and  security 
of  the  canal,  which  were  to  be  wholly  assumed  by  the  United  States 
as  the  owner  of  this  great  work  of  public  improvement  built  at  its 
own  cost. /He  considered  that  the  abrogation  of  the  Clay ton-Bulwer 
treaty,  which  had  been  inserted  by  way  of  amendment  in  the  former 
treaty  without  any  previous  opportunity  for  consideration  of  the 
matter  by  Great  Britain,  would  not  now  be  regarded  as  inadmissible 
if  sufficient  provision  were  made  in  the  new  treaty  for  anything  in 
the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty  which  it  was  any  longer  of  material 
interest  to  Great  Britain  to  preserve. 

/In  this  connection  he  referred  to  the  fact  that  the  new  treaty  con- 
tained no  stipulation  against  the  acquisition  of  sovereignty  over  the 
territory  through  which  the  canal  should  pass,  and  that,  although 
the  former  treaty  as  approved  by  Great  Britain  before  its  amend- 
ment by  the  Senate  had  contained  no  such  stipulation,  it  had  left 
undisturbed  that  portion  of  Article  I  of  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty 
by  which  the  two  Governments  agreed  that  neither  would  ever  oc- 
cupy, or  fortify,  or  colonize,  or  assume,  or  exercise  any  dominion 
over  Nicaragua,  Costa  Rica,  the  Mosquito  Coast,  or  any  part  of 
Central  America;  and  also  to  Article  VIII  of  the  Clayton-Bulwer 
Treaty,  which  is  referred  to  in  the  preamble  of  the  new  treaty  and 
in  that  of  the  original  treaty  of  February  5,  1000.  as  amended  by 
the  Senate,  as  establishing  the  "  general  principle  "  of  neutralization 
which  was  not  to  be  thereby  impaired.  I 

It  was  claimed  that  if  Great  Britain  were  now  to  be  called  upon 
to  surrender  the  interests  and  the  principle  thus  secured  by  what 
remained  of  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty,  there  should  be,  in  view  of 
the  character  of  the  treaty  now  to  be  concluded  and  of  .the  "general 
principle  "  of  neutralization  thus  reaffirmed  in  the  preamble,  some 
clause  inserted  agreeing  that  no  change  of  sovereignty  or  other 
change  of  circumstances  in  the  territory  through  which  the  canal  is 
intended  to  pass  shall  affect  such  "  general  principle  "  or  release  the 
parties,  or  either  of  them,  from  their  obligations  under  this  treaty, 
and  that  the  rules  adopted  as  the  basis  of  neutralization  shall  govern 
so  far  as  possible  all  interoceanic  communication  across  the  Isthmus. 
He  therefore  proposed,  as  an  additional  article,  on  the  acceptance 
<if  which  His  Majesty's  Government  would  probably  be  prepared  to 
withdraw  their  objections  to  the  formal  abrogation  of  the  Clayton- 
Bulwer  treaty  the  following,  viz : 

Tn  view  of  the  permanent  character  of  this  treaty,  whereby  the  "general  prin- 
ciple" established  by  Article  VIII  of  the  Clayton-Bulwer  ((invention  is  re- 
affirmed, the  high  contracting  parties  hereby  declare  and  agree  that  the  rules 
laid  down  in  the  last  preceding  article  shall,  so  far  as  they  may  be  applicable, 
govern  all  interoceanic  communication  across  the  isthmus  which  connects 
North  and  South  America,  and  that  no  change  of  territorial  sovereignty  or  other 
change  of  circumstances  shall  affect  such  general  principle  or  the  obligations 
of  the  high  contracting  parties  under  the  present  treaty. 


58  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

The  clau.se  so  proposed  was  regarded  by  the  President  as  more  far- 
reaching  than  the  purpose  demanded  and  as  converting  the  vague  and 
indefinite  provisions  of  the  eighth  article  of  the  Clayton- BuTwer 
treaty — which  only  contemplated  future  treaty  stipulations  to  be 
entered  into  when  any  other  route  should  prove  to  be  practicable — ■ 
into  a  very  definite  and  certain  present  treaty  which  would  fasten  the 
crystallized  rules  of  this  treaty  upon  every  other  interoceanic  com- 
munication across  the  Isthmus;  and  as  perpetuating  in  a  much  stricter 
and  more  definite  and  more  extended  form,  by  a  revision  and  re- 
enactment  of  the  eighth  article,  the  mischievous  effects  of  the  Clay- 
ton-Bulwer  treaty,  of  which  it  was  the  desire  and  hope  of  the  United 
States  to  be  relieved  altogether. 

The  President  considered  that  now  that  a  canal  between  the  two 
oceans  was  actually  about  to  be  built,  it  was  sufficient  for  the  treaty 
now  to  be  concluded'  to  provide  for  that  alone;  that  there  was 
hardly  a  possibility  of  more  than  this  one  canal  ever  being  built 
between  the  two  oceans — that  in  that  remote  and  almost  impossible 
contingency  the  rules  and  principles  governing  the  use  and  status  of 
the  canal  to  be  constructed  under  this  treaty  would  be  regarded  as 
precedents  for  the  consideration  of  the  parties  if  they  should  be  ap- 
proved and  sanctioned  by  experience  and  by  the  judgment  of  the 
commercial  nations;  but  that  for  the  present  a  convention  for  the 
building  of  one  canal  at  the  cost  of  the  United  States  for  the  equal 
benefit  of  them  all  was  all  that  could  be  wisely  attempted. /Tie  not 
only  was  willing  but  earnestly  desired  that  the  "  general  principle  " 
of  neutralization  referred  to  in  the  preamble  of  this  treaty  and  in 
the  eighth  article  of  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty  should  be  perpetually 
applied  to  this  canal.  This,  in  fact,  had  always  been  insisted  upon 
by  the  United  States.  He  recognized  the  entire  justice  and  propriety 
of  the  demand  of  Great  Britain  that  if  she  was  asked  to  surrender 
the  material  interest  secured  by  the  first  article  of  that  treaty,  which 
might  result  at  some  indefinite  future  time  in  a  change  of  sovereignty 
in  the  territory  traversed  by  the  canal,  the  "  general  principle  "  of 
neutralization  as  applied  to  the  canal  should  be  absolutely  secured, 
and  that  a  clause  should  be  added  to  the  draft  treaty  by  which  the 
parties  should  agree  that  no  change  of  sovereignty  or  of  international 
relations  of  the  territory  traversed  by  the  canal  should  affect  this 
general  principle  or  the  obligations  of  the  parties  under  this  treaty. 

These  views  were  in  substance  submitted  to  Lord  Lansdowne  on 
the  part  of  the  United  States,  and  after  considerable  discussion  ami 
deliberation  the  following  additional  clause,  to  be  known  as  Article 
1  V  of  the  new  treaty,  was  agreed  upon  as  a  substitute  for  that  pro- 
posed by  him : 

It  is  agreed  thai  no  change  of  territorial  sovereignty,  or  of  the  international 
relations  of  the  country  or  countries  traversed  by  the  before-mentioned  canal. 
shall  affect  the  general  principle  of  neutralization  or  the  obligations  of  the 
high  contracting  parties  under  the  present  treaty. 

It  transpired,  in  the  course  of  the  discussion  already  referred  to. 
that  although  the  draft  of  the  new  treaty  mentioned  no  particular 
route  which  the  canal  should  traverse,  there  was  an  apprehension 
that,  as  the  canal  had  been  so  often  referred  to  as  the  Nicaragua 
Canal,  and  the  intended  treaty  as  the  Nicaragua  Canal  treaty,  it 
might  possibly  be  claimed  that  it  would  not  apply  to  a  canal  by  the 
Panama  route  or  by  any  other  route,  if  any  such  should  be  selected. 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA   CANAL.  59 

But  it  had  always  been  the  purpose  of  the  President  that  the  treaty 
should  apply  to  the  canal  which  should  be  first  built,  by  whichever 
or  whatever  route,  and  when  this  apprehension  was  communicated 
to  the  President,  he  declared  such  to  be  his  purpose,  and,  to  exclude 
all  doubt,  it  was  agreed  that  the  preamble  should  be  amended  by  in- 
serting, after  the  word  "oceans,"'  the  words  "by  whatsoever  route 
may  be  considered  expedient." 

His  Majesty's  Government  recognized  the  material  importance  of 
the  changes  from  the  former  treaty  as  amended  by  the  Senate,  by 
the  omission  of  the  Senate  amendment  that  the  first  five  rules  of 
neutrality  should  not  apply  to  measures  which  "might  be  found 
necessary  to  take  for  securing  by  its  own  forces  the  defense  of  the 
United  States,"  and  by  the  omission,  as  an  offset  thereto,  of  the  words 
"in  time  of  war  as  in  time  of  peace"  from  rule  1,  and  of  the  stipu- 
lation prohibiting  the  erection  of  fortifications  commanding  the 
canal  or  the  waters  adjacent.  These  changes,  in  the  first  place,  re- 
moved what  Lord  Lansdowne  had  criticized  as  a  dangerous  am- 
biguity in  the  former  treaty  as  amended,  of  which  one  clause  per- 
mitted the  adoption  of  defensive  measures,  while  another  prohibited 
the  erection  of  fortifications. 

The  obvious  effect  of  these  changes  is  to  reserve  to  the  United 
States, .when  engaged  in  war,  the  right  and  power  to  protect  the 
canal  from  all  damage  and  injury  at  the  hands  of  the  enemy,  to 
exclude  the  ships  of  such  enemy  from  the  use  of  the  canal  while  the 
war  lasts,  and  to  defend  itself  in  the  waters  adjacent  to  the  canal. 
the  same  as  in  any  other  waters,  without  derogation  in  other  respects 
from  the  principles  of  neutrality  established  by  the  treaty;  and  it 
was  clearly  recognized  by  His  Majesty's  Government  "that  con- 
tingencies may  arise  when,  not  only  from  a  national  point  of  view 
but  on  behalf  of  the  commercial  interests  of  the  whole  world,  it 
might  be  of  supreme  importance  to  the  United  Stales  that  they 
should  be  free  to  adopt  measures  for  the  defense  of  the  canal  at  a 
moment  when  they  were  themselves  engaged  in  hostilities." 

The  omission  of  the  words  in  the  former  treaty  by  which  Great 
Britain  was  bound  jointly  with  the  United  States  to  maintain  the 
neutrality  of  the  canal,  enabled  His  Majesty's  Government  to  waive 
their  former  objection  insisted  upon  under  the  former  treaty  as 
amended  by  the  Senate,  to  an  agreement  which  permitted  the  United 
States  in  time  for  war  or  apprehended  war  to  interfere  with  the 
canal  or  its  use,  as  its  interests  might  require,  while  Great  Britain 
alone,  in  spite  of  her  vast  commercial  interests,  was  precluded  from 
taking  any  measures  to  secure  her  interests  in  or  near  the  canal. 
By  the  omission  of  the  words  "in  time  of  war  as  in  time  of  peace," 
in  the  event  of  the  remote  and  well-nigh  impossible  contingency  of 
a  war  between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain,  each  party  is 
remitted  to  its  natural  right  of  self-defense,  but,  even  in  that  emer- 
gency, by  force  of  the  sixth  clause  of  Article  III — which  is  the 
only  clause  in  the  treaty  by  its  terms  expressly  applying  in  time  of 
war  as  in  time  of  peace — the  plant,- establishment,  buildings,  and  all 
works  necessary  to  the  construction,  maintenance,  and  operation  of 
the  canal  shall  be  deemed  to  be  part  thereof,  and  shall  enjoy  complete 
immunity  from  attack  or  injury  by  the  enemy,  and  from  acts  cal- 
culated to  impair  their  usefulness  as  part  of  the  canal. 


60  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL. 

Finally,  the  absence  from  the  draft  treaty  of  any  provision  for 
the  adherence  of  other  powers  was  at  first  strenuously  objected  to 
by  the  British  Government.  It  protested  against  being  bound  by 
stringent  rules  of  neutral  conduct  not  equally  binding  upon  other 
powers,  and  to  remedy  this  proposed  the  insertion  in  rule  1,  after 
the  word  "  nations,"  of  the  words  "  which  shall  agree  to  observe 
these  rules."  so  as  to  make  it  read  that  "  the  canal  shall  be  free  and 
open  to  the  vessels  of  commerce  and  of  war  of  all  nations,  who  shall 
agree  to  observe  these  rules,  on  terms  of  entire  equality,  so  that  there 
shall  be  no  discrimination  against  any  nation  so  agreeing,"  etc. 

But  the  President  was  apprehensive  that  such  a  provision  would 
give  to  the  other  nations  the  footing  of  parties  to  the  contract  and 
give  them  a  contract  right  to  the  use  of  the  canal.  And  in  view  of 
the  action  of  the  Senate  on  the  former  treaty,  striking  out  Article  III, 
which  provided  for  bringing  the  treaty,  when  ratified,  to  the  notice 
of  other  powers  and  inviting  them  to  adhere  to  it,  which  seemed  to 
mean  practically  the  same  thing,  he  believed  that  the  proposed  pro- 
vision would  meet  the  same  fate.  This  was  represented  to  His 
Majesty's  Government,  and  it  was  also  insisted  on  the  part  of  the 
United  States  that  there  was  a  strong  national  feeling  among  the 
peoples  of  the  United  States  against  giving  to  foreign  powers  a  con- 
tract right  to  intervene  in  an  affair  so  peculiarly  American  as  this 
canal  when  constructed  would  be :  that,  notwithstanding  the  similar 
provision  in  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty,  no  foreign  powers  in  the  50 
years  that  had  elapsed  had  effectively  intimated  a  desire  to  partici- 
pate in  or  contribute  to  the  construction  of  the  canal;  that  no  other 
power  had  now  any  right  in  the  premises,  or  anything  to  give  up  or 
part  with  as  the  consideration  for  acquiring  such  a  contract  right; 
that  they  must  rely  upon  the  good  faith  of  the  United  States  in  its 
declaration  to  Great  Britain  in  the  treaty  that  it  adopts  the  rules 
and  principles  of  neutralization  therein  set  forth,  and  that  it  was  not 
quite  correct  to  speak  of  the  nations  other  than  the  United  States  as 
being  bound  by  the  rules  of  neutralization  set  forth  in  the  treaty; 
that  it  was  the  United  States  which  bound  itself  by  them  as  a  con- 
sideration for  getting  rid  of  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty,  and  that  the 
only  way  in  which  they  were  bound  by  them  was  that  they  must 
comply  with  them  if  they  would  use  the  canal. 

It  was  further  insisted  that  the  proposed  provision  was  much  more 
objectionable  than  the  third  article  of  the  former  treaty,  which  was 
struck  out  by  the  Senate,  for  that  only  invited  the  other  powers  to 
come  in  and  become  parties  to  the  contract  after  ratification.  But 
the  proposed  provision  would  rather  compel  the  other  powers  to  come 
in  and  agree  in  the  first  instance  as  a  condition  precedent  to  any  use 
of  the  canal  bv  them. 

These  views' were  appreciated,  and  a  modification  suggested  on  the 
part  of  the  United  States  to  Lord  Lansdowne's  proposed  amendment 
was  accepted  which  omits  the  words  "which  shall  agree  to  observe" 
and  substitutes  for  them  the  word  ''observing,"  and  omits  the  words 
"  so  agreeing  "  and  inserts  the  word  "  observing,"  and  omits  the  words 
"  so  agreeing  "  and  inserts  "  such,"  before  "  nations,"  in  the  next  line, 
so  as  to  make  the  provision  read:  "The  canal  shall  be  free  and  open 
to  the  vessels  of  commerce  and  of  war  of  all  nations  observing  these 
rules  on  terms  of  entire  equality,  so  that  there  shall  be  no  discrimina- 
tion against  any  such  nation."  etc.     Thus  the  whole  idea  of  contract 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OP    THE    PANAMA   CANAL.  61 

right  disappears,  and  any  nation  whose  ships  refuse  or  fail  to  observe 
the  rules  will  be  deprived  of  the  use  of  the  canal. 

The  further  amendment  proposed  by  Lord  Lansdowne,  and  taken 
from  the  eighth  article  of  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty,  that  the  condi- 
tions and  charges  of  traffic  on  the  canal  shall  be  just  and  equitable, 
was  so  obviously  reasonable  that  it  was  accepted  by  the  President  as 
soon  as  suggested. 
I  am,  etc., 

John  Hay. 

History  of  Amendments  Proposed  and  Considered  After  the 
Action  of  the  Senate  and  which  Resulted  in  the  Second  Hay- 
Pauncefote  Treaty. 

[Prepared  in  the  Department  of  State  and  sent  by  Mr.  Hay  to  the  Senate  Committee  on 

Foreign  Relations.] 

The  Senate's  amendments  to  the  former  treaty  required  (first) 
that  there  should  be  in  plain  and  explicit  terms  an  express  abrogation 
of  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty;  (second)  that  the  rules  of  neutrality 
adopted  should  not  deprive  the  United  States  of  the  right  to  defend 
itself  and  to  maintain  public  order;  and  (third)  that  other  powers 
should  not  in  any  manner  be  made  parties  to  the  treaty  by  being 
invited  to  adhere  to  it. 

For  a  better  understanding  of  the  scheme  of  the  new  treaty,  it 
may  be  well  briefly  to  advert  to  the  objections  suggested  by  Great 
Britain  to  these  several  amendments. 

AS   TO   THE   ABROGATION   OF  THE   CLAYTON-BULWER   TREATY. 

Lord  Lansdowne's  objections  were  as  to  the  manner  of  doing  this 
and  as  to  the  substance.  It  was  insisted  that  in  the  negotiations 
which  led  to  the  making  of  the  former  treaty  no  attempt  had  been 
made  to  ascertain  the  views  of  the  British  Government  on  such  com- 
plete abrogation,  and  that  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty  being,  as  it 
claimed,  an  international  compact  of  unquestionable  validity,  could 
not  be  abrogated  without  the  consent  of  both  parties  to  the  contract. 

There  was  in  this  connection  an  apparent  misconception  on  the 
part  of  His  Majesty's  Government  in  respect  to  the  proper  function 
of  the  Senate  in  advising  the  ratification  of  a  treaty  with  amendments 
proposed  by  it.  It  seemed  to  be  regarded  as  an  attempt  on  the  part 
of  the  Senate  to  accomplish  by  its  own  vote,  as  a  final  act,  the  abro- 
gation of  an  existing  treaty,  without  an  opportunity  for  full  consid- 
eration of  the  matter  by  the  other  party.  It  was  overlooked  that  the 
Senate  was  simply  exercising  its  undoubted  constitutional  function 
of  proposing  amendments  to  be  communicated  to  the  other  party  to 
the  contract,  to  ascertain  its  views  upon  the  question,  and  it  was 
hoped  by  the  President — and  the  hope  was  expressed  in  submitting 
the  treaty  as  amended  by  the  Senate  to  the  British  Government — 
that  the  amendments  would  be  found  acceptable  by  it.  Failing  this, 
there  was  a  full  opportunity  for  His  Majesty's  Government,  by  coun- 
ter propositions,  to  express  its  views  on  this  and  the  other  amend- 
ments, and  so  by  a  continuous  negotiation  to  arrive,  if  possible,  at  a 
mutually  satisfactory  solution  of  all  questions  involved.     Xeverthe- 


62  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL. 

less,  in  view  of  the  great  importance  of  the  Senate's  amendments, 
taken  together,  it  was  deemed  more  expedient  by  Lord  Lansdowne  to 
reject  them,  but  to  leave  the  door  open  for  fresh  negotiations,  which 
might  have  a  more  happy  issue;  and  he  earnestly  deprecated  a  final 
failure  of  the  parties  to  agree,  and  emphatically  expressed  the  desire 
of  his  Government  to  meet  the  views  of  the  United  States  on  this  most 
important  matter. 

The  principal  substantial  objection  to  the  Senate's  amendment, 
completely  superseding  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty,  was  that  if  this 
were  done,  the  provisions  of  Article  I  of  that  treaty,  which  had  been 
left  untouched  by  the  original  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty,  would  be 
annulled,  and  thereby  both  powers  would,  except  in  the  vicinity  of 
the  canal,  acquire  entire  freedom  of  action  in  Central  America,  a 
change  which  Lord  Lansdowne  thought  would  certainly  be  of  advan- 
tage to  the  United  States,  and  might  be  of  substantial  importance. 

AS  TO  THE  RIGHT  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES,  NOTWITHSTANDING  THE 
NEUTRAL  RULES  ADOPTED  BY  THE  TREATY,  TO  DEFEND  ITSELF  BY 
ITS  OWN  FORCES,  AND  TO  SECURE  THE  MAINTENANCE  OF  PUBLIC 
ORDER,  COVERED  BY  WHAT  WAS  GENERALLY  KNOWN  AS  THE  DAVIS 
AMENDMENT. 

His  Majesty's  Government  criticized  the  vagueness  of  the  language 
employed  in  the  amendment,  and  the  absence  of  all  security  as  to  the 
manner  in  which  its  ends  might  at  some  future  time  be  interpreted; 
but  thought  that,  however  precisely  it  might  be  worded,  it  would  be 
impossible  to  determine  what  might  be  the  effect  if  one  clause  per- 
mitting defensive  measures  and  another  clause  (which  has  now  been 
omitted)  prohibiting  fortification  of  the  canal  were  allowed  to  stand 
side  by  side  in  the  same  convention. 

This  amendment  was  strenuously  objected  to  by  Great  Britain  as 
involving  a  distinct  departure  from  the  principle  of  neutrality  which 
had  theretofore  found  acceptance  by  both  Governments,  inasmuch 
as  it  would,  as  construed  by  Lord  Lansdowne,  permit  the  United 
States  in  time  of  peace  as  well  as  in  time  of  war  to  resort  to  whatever 
warlike  acts  it  pleased  in  and  near  the  canal,  which  would  be  clearly 
inconsistent  with  its  intended  neutral  character  and  would  deprive 
the  commerce  and  navies  of  the  world  of  the  free  use  of  it. 

It  was  insisted  that  by  means  of  the  amendment  the  obligation  of 
Great  Britain  to  respect  the  neutrality  of  the  canal  under  all  circum- 
stances would  remain  in  force,  while  that  of  the  United  States,  on 
the  other  hand,  would  be  essentially  modified,  and  that  this  would 
result  in  a  one-sided  agreement,  by  which  Great  Britain  would  be 
debarred  from  any  warlike  act  in  or  near  the  canal,  while  the  United 
States  could  resort  to  any  such  acts,  even  in  time  of  peace,  which  it 
might  deem  necessary  to  secure  its  own  safety. 

Moreover,  it  was  insisted  that  by  this  amendment,  in  connection 
with  the  third  amendment,  which  excluded  other  powers  from 
becoming  parties  to  the  contract,  Great  Britain  would  be  placed  at 
a  great  disadvantage  as  compared  with  all  other  powers,  inasmuch 
as  she  alone,  with  all  her  vast  interests  in  the  commerce  of  the  world, 
would  be  hound  under  all  circumstances  to  respect  the  neutrality 
of  the  canal,  while  the  United  States,  even  in  time  of  peace,  would 
have  a  treaty  right  to  interfere  with  the  canal  on  the  plea  of  necessity 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  63 

for  its  own  safety,  and  all  other  powers  not  being  bound  by  the 
treat}7  could  at  their  pleasure  disregard  its  provisions. 

AS  TO  THE  AMENDMENT  STRIKING  OUT  THE  ARTICLE  IN  THE  TREAT"? 
AS  SUBMITTED  TO  THE  SENATE,  WHICH  PROVIDED  FOR  AN  INVITA- 
TION   TO    THE    OTHER    POWERS    TO    COME    IN    AND    ADHERE    TO    IT. 

This  was  emphatically  objected  to  because  if  acquiesced  in  by 
Great  Britain  she  would  be  bound  by  what  Lord  Lansdowne  de- 
scribed as  the  "  stringent  rules  of  neutral  conduct "  prescribed  by 
the  treaty,  which  would  not  be  equally  binding  upon  the  other 
powers,  and  it  was  urged  that  the  adhesion  of  other  powers  to  the 
treaty  as  parties  would  furnish  an  additional  security  for  the  neu- 
trality of  the  canal. 

In  the  hope  of  reconciling  the  conflicting  views  thus  presented 
between  the  former  treaty  as  amended  by  the  Senate  and  the  objec- 
tions thereto  of  the  British  Government,  the  treaty  now  submitted 
for  the  consideration  of  the  Senate  was  drafted. 

The  substantial  differences  from  the  former  treat)7  are  as  follows: 

First.  In  the  new  draft  of  treaty  the  provision  superseding  the 
Clayton-Bulwer  treaty  as  a  whole,  instead  of  being  parenthetically 
inserted,  as  by  the  former  Senate  amendment,  was  made  the  subject 
of  an  independent  article  and  presented  as  the  first  article  of  the 
treaty.  It  was  thus  submitted  to  the  consideration  of  the  British 
Government  in  connection  with  the  other  substantial  provisions  of 
the  treaty  which  declared  the  neutrality  of  the  canal  for  the  use  of  all 
nations  on  terms  of  entire  equality. 

Second.  By  a  change  in  the  first  line  of  Article  III,  instead  of  the 
United  States  and  Great  Britain  jointly  adopting  as  the  basis  of  the 
neutralization  of  the  canal,  the  rules  of  neutrality  prescribed  for  its 
use  as  was  provided  by  the  former  treaty,  the  United  States  now  alone 
adopts  them. 

This  was  regarded  as  a  very  radical  and  important  change  and  one 
which  would  go  far  toward  a  reconciliation  of  the  conflicting  views 
of  the  two  Governments. 

It  relieves  Great  Britain  of  all  responsibility  and  obligation  to 
enforce  the  neutrality  of  the  canal,  which  by  the  former  treaty  had 
been  imposed  upon  or  assumed  by  her  jointly  with  the  United  States, 
and  thus  meets  the  main  stress  of  the  objection  which  seemed  to 
underlie  or  be  interwoven  with  her  other  objections  to  the  former 
Senate  amendments.  The  United  States  alone  as  the  sole  owner  of 
the  canal,  as  a  purely  American  enterprise,  adopts  and  prescribes 
the  rules  by  which  the  use  of  the  canal  shall  be  regulated,  and  as- 
sumes the  entire  responsibility  and  burden  of  enforcing,  without  the 
assistance  of  Great  Britain  or  of  any  other  nation,  its  absolute  neu- 
trality. 

It  was  also  believed  that  this  change  would  be  in  harmony  with 
the  national  wish  that  this  great  interoceanic  waterway  should  not 
only  be  constructed  and  owned,  but  exclusively  controlled  and 
managed  by  the  United  States. 

Third.  The  next  important  change  from  the  former  treaty  con- 
sists in  the  omission  of  the  words  "  in  time  of  war  as  in  time  of  peace  " 
from  clause  1  of  Article  III. 


64  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA   CANAL. 

No  longer  insisting-  upon  the  language  of  the  Davis  amendment — 
which  had  in  terms  reserved  to  the  United  States  express  permission 
to  disregard  the  rules  of  neutrality  prescribed,  when  necessary  to 
secure  its  own  defense,  which  the  Senate  had  apparently  deemed 
necessary  because  of  the  provision  in  Rule  I,  that  the  canal  should 
be  free  and  open  "  in  time  of  war  as  in  time  of  peace  "  to  the  vessels 
of  all  nations — it  was  considered  that  the  omission  of  the  words  "in 
time  of  war  as  in  time  of  peace  "  would  dispense  with  the  necessity 
of  the  amendment  referred  to,  and  that  war  between  the  contracting 
parties,  or  between  the  United  States  and  any  other  power,  would 
have  the  ordinary  effect  cf  war  upon  treaties  when  not  specially 
otherwise  provided,  and  would  remit  both  parties  to  their  original 
and  natural  right  of  self-defense  and  give  to  the  United  States  the 
clear  right  to  close  the  canal  against  the  other  belligerent,  and  to 
protect  it  and  defend  itself  by  whatever  means  might  be  necessary. 

Fourth.  In  conformity  with  the  Senate's  emphatic  rejection  of  Ar- 
ticle III  of  the  former  treaty,  which  provided  that  the  high  contract- 
ing parties  tooidd,  immediately  upon  the  exchange  of  ratifications. 
bring  it  to  the  notice  of  other  powers  and  in  rite  them  to  adhere  to  it, 
n<>  such  provision  was  inserted  in  the  draft  of  the  new  treaty. 

It  was  believed  that  the  declaration  that  the  canal  should  be  free 
and  open  to  all  nations  on  terms  of  entire  equality  (now  that  Great 
Britain  was  relieved  of  all  responsibility  and  obligation  to  enforce 
and  defend  its  neutrality)  would  practically  meet  the  force  of  the 
objection  which  had  been  made  by  Lord  Lansdowne  to  the  Senate's 
excision  of  the  article  inviting  the  other  powrers  to  come  in,  viz,  that 
Great  Britain  was  placed  thereby  in  a  worse  position  than  other 
nations  in  case  of  war  with  the  United  States. 

Fifth.  The  next  change  from  the  former  treaty  is  the  omission  of 
flu  'provision  in  clause  7  of  Article  III.  which  prohibited  the  forti- 
fication of  the  caned,  and  the  transfer  to  clause  2  of  the  remaining 
provision  of  clause  7.  that  the  United  States  shall  be  at  liberty  to 
maintain  such  military  police  along  the  canal  as  may  be  necessary 
to  protect  it  against  lawlessness  and  disorder. 

The  whole  theory  of  the  treaty  is  that  the  canal  is  to  be  an  entirely 
American  canal.  The  enormous  cost  of  constructing  it  is  to  be  borne 
by  the  United  States  alone.  When  constructed  it  is  to  be  exclusively 
the  property  of  the  United  States  and  is  to  be  managed,  controlled, 
and  defended  by  it.  Under  these  circumstances,  and  considering  that 
now  by  the  new  treaty  Great  Britain  is  relieved  of  all  the  responsi- 
bility and  burden  of  maintaining  its  neutrality  and  security,  it  was 
thought  entirely  fair  to  omit  the  prohibition  that  "no  fortification 
shall  be  erected  commanding  the  canal  or  the  waters  adjacent." 

Sixth.  It  will  be  observed  that  although  the  words  "  in  time  of  war 
as  in  time  of  peace"  had  been  omitted  from  clause  1  of  Article  III. 
upon  the  theory  that  the  omission  of  these  words  would  dispense 
with  the  necessity  of  the  Davis  amendment,  and  that  war  between 
the  United  States  and  any  other  power  would  have  the  ordinary 
effect  of  Avar  upon  treaties  and  remit  both  parties  to  their  natural 
right  of  self-defense,  the  same  words  are  retained  in  the  sixth  clause 
of  Article  III,  which  provides  that  the  plant,  establishment,  buildings. 
and  all  works  necessary  to  the  construction,  maintenance,  and  opera- 
tion of  the  canal  shall  be  deemed  part  of  it  for  the  purposes  of  this 
treaty,  and  "  in  time  of  war  as  in  time  of  peace  "  shall  enjoy  complete 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  65 

immunity  from  attack  or  injury  by  belligerents  and  from  acts  cal- 
culated to  impair  their  usefulness. 

It  was  considered  that  such  specific  provision  was  in  the  general 
interest  of  commerce  and  of  civilization,  and  that  all  nations  would 
regard  such  a  work  as  sacred  under  all  circumstances. 

It  was  hoped  that  the  changes  above  enumerated  from  the  former 
treaty  would  practically  reconcile  the  conflicting  contentions  of  the 
two  Governments  and  would  lead  to  the  much-desired  result  of  an 
entire  concurrence  of  views  between  them. 

With  the  exception  of  these  changes  care  was  taken  in  the  draft  of 
the  new  treaty  to  preserve  the  exact  language,  which  had  passed  both 
the  Senate  and  the  British  Government  without  objection,  and,  as  is 
believed,  without  criticism. 

The  hope  that  the  changes  thus  made  had  effectually  met  the 
British  objections  to  the  former  treaty  as  amended  by  the  Senate 
was  almost  realized. 

The  proposed  draft  of  the  new  treaty  was  transmitted  to  Lord 
Lansdowne,  and  after  mature  deliberation  he  proposed  on  the  part 
of  His  Majesty's  Government  only  three  substantial  amendments. 

He  recognized  the  weighty  importance  of  the  change  by  which 
Great  Britain  was  relieved  of  all  responsibility  for  enforcing  the  neu- 
trality and  maintaining  the  security  of  the  canal,  and  that  all  this 
burden  was  solely  assumed  by  the  United  States.  He  also  appre- 
ciated the  importance  of  the  other  proposed  changes  in  the  direction 
of  harmony. 

Under  this  modified  aspect  of  the  relations  of  the  two  nations  to 
the  canal,  he  was  not  indisposed  to  consent  to  the  abrogation  of  the 
Clayton-Bulwer  treaty  if  the  "  general  principle "  of  neutrality, 
which  was  reaffirmed  in  the  preamble  of  the  new  treaty  as  well  as 
of  the  former  one,  should  be  preserved  and  secured  against  any 
change  of  sovereignty  or  other  change  of  circumstances  in  the  terri- 
tory through  which  the  canal  is  intended  to  pass,  and  that  the  rules 
adopted  as  the  basis  of  neutralization  should  govern,  as  far  as  pos- 
sible, all  interoceanic  communication  across  the  Isthmus.  He  re- 
ferred in  this  connection  to  Articles  I  and  VIII  of  the  Clayton- 
Bulwer  treaty. 

He  therefore  proposed,  by  way  of  amendment,  the  insertion  of 
an  additional  article,  on  the  acceptance  of  which  His  Majesty's  Gov- 
ernment would  be  inclined  to  withdraw  its  objection  to  the  formal 
abrogation  of  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty. 

The  amendment  thus  proposed  by  him  was  in  the  following  lan- 
guage, viz : 

In  view  of  the  permanent  character  of  this  treaty,  whereby  the  general  prin- 
ciple established  by  Article  VIII  of  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty  is  reaffirmed,  the 
high  contracting  parties  hereby  declare  that  the  rules  laid  doim  in  the  last 
preceding  article  shall,  so  far  as  then  may  be  applicable,  govern  all  inter- 
oceanic communication  across  the  Isthmus  which  connects  North  and  South 
America,  and  that  no  change  of  territorial  sovereignty  or  other  change  of  cir- 
cumstances shall  affect  such  general  principle  or  the  obligations  of  the  high 
contracting  parties  under  this  treaty. 

This  proposed  article  was  regarded  by  the  President  as  too  far- 
reaching  for  the  purpose  in  view,  and  as  converting  the  vague  and 
indefinte  provisions  of  the  eighth  article  of  the  Clayton-Bulwer 
treaty,  which  contemplated  only  future  treaty  stipulations  when  any 

42112— S.  Doc.  474,  G3-2 5 


66  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

new  route  should  prove  to  be  practicable,  into  a  very  definite  and 
certain  present  treaty,  fastening  the  crystallized  rules  of  neutrality 
adopted  now  for  this  canal  upon  every  other  interoceanic  communi- 
cation across  the  Isthmus,  and  as  perpetuating  in  a  more  definite 
and  extended  form,  by  a  sort  of  reenactment  of  the  eighth  article, 
the  embarrassing  effects  of  the  Clayton- Bulwer  treaty,  of  which  the 
United  States  hoped  to  be  relieved  altogether. 

He  believed  that  now  that  a  canal  is  about  to  be  built  at  the  sole 
cost  of  the  United  States  for  the  equal  benefit  of  all  nations,  it  was 
sufficient  for  the  present  treaty  to  provide  for  that  one  canal,  and 
that  it  was  hardly  within  the  range  of  possibility  that  the  United 
States  would  ever  build  more  than  one  canal  between  the  two  oceans. 

The  President  was,  however,  not  only  willing,  but  desirous,  that 
the  "  general  principle  "  of  neutralization  referred  to  in  the  preamble 
of  this  treaty  should  be  applicable  to  this  canal  now  intended  to 
be  built,  notwithstanding  any  change  of  sovereignty  or  of  interna- 
tional relations  of  the  territory  through  which  it  should  pass.  This 
"  general  principle  "  of  neutralization  had  always  in  fact  been  insisted 
upon  by  the  United  States,  and  he  recognized  the  entire  justice  of 
the  request  of  Great  Britain  that  if  she  should  now  surrender  the 
material  interest  which  had  been  secured  to  her  by  the  first  article 
of  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty,  which  might  result  in  the  indefinite 
future  should  the  territory  traversed  by  the  canal  undergo  a  change 
of  sovereignty,  this  "general  principle  "  should  not  be  thereby 
affected  or  impaired. 

These  views  were  communicated  to  His  Majesty's  Government, 
and  as  a  substitute  for  the  article  proposed  by  Lord  Lansdowne  the 
following  was  proposed  on  the  part  of  the  United  States: 

It  is  agreed  that  no  change  of  territorial  sovereignty-  or  of  the  international 
illations  of  the  country  or  countries  traversed  by  the  before-mentioned  canal 
shall  affect  the  general  principle  of  neutralisation  or  the  obligations  of  the  high 
contracting  parties  under  the  present  treaty. 

Upon  a  full  exchange  of  views,  this  article  proposed  by  the  United 
States  was  accepted  by  Great  Britain  and  becomes  Article  IV  of  the 
treaty  now  submitted.  It  is  thought  to  do  entire  justice  to  the 
reasonable  demands  of  Great  Britain  in  preserving  the  general 
principle  of  neutralization  and  at  the  same  time  to  relieve  the  United 
States  of  the  vague,  indefinite,  and  embarrassing  obligations  imposed 
by  the  eighth  article  of  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty. 

During  the  discussions  upon  this  article  it  was  suggested  that 
although  no  particular  route  was  mentioned  in  the  proposed  treaty 
as  the  route  to  be  traversed  by  the  canal,  yet  as  the  canal  had  been 
so  commonly  mentioned  as  the  "  Nicaragua  Canal,"  and  the  intended 
treaty  as  the  "  Nicaragua  Canal  treaty,"  it  might  possibly  be  claimed 
that  the  treaty  did  not  apply  to  a  canal  by  the  Panama  route,  or  by 
any  other  possible  route.  But  it  had  always  been  intended  by  the 
President  that  the  treaty  should  apply  to  the  canal  which  should  be 
first  constructed,  by  whichever  or  whatever  route,  and  to  remove 
the  apprehension  referred  to  and  to  exclude  all  possible  doubt  in  the 
matter,  it  was  agreed  that  the  preamble  should  be  amended  by 
inserting  in  the  preamble  after  the  word  "  oceans "  the  xoords  "  by 
irhatever  route  may  be  considered  expedient." 

His  Majesty's  Government  at  first  strenuously  objected  to  the 
absence  from  the  treaty  of  any  provision  for  other  powers  coming  in. 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  67 

so  as  to  be  bound  by  its  terms.  It  protested  against  being  bound  by 
what  it  regarded  as  stringent  rules  of  neutrality  which  should  not  be 
equally  binding  upon  other  powers. 

Lord  Lansdowne  accordingly  proposed  the  following  amendment, 
viz: 

To  insert  in  rule  1  of  Article  III,  after  the  word  "  nation.''  the  words,  "  which 
shall  agree  to  observe  these  rules,"  and  in  the  following  line,  after  the  word 
"  nation,"  the  words  "  so  agreeing,"  so  as  to  make  the  clause  read : 

"1.  The  canal  shall  be  free  and  open  to  the  vessels  of  commerce  and  of  war 
of  all  nations  which  shall  agree  to  observe  these  rules,  on  terms  of  entire  equal- 
ity, so  that  there  shall  be  no  discrimination  against  any  nation  so  agreeing,"  etc. 

The  President,  however,  could  not  consent  to  this  amendment, 
because  he  apprehended  that  it  might  be  construed  as  making  the 
other  powers  parties  to  the  contract,  and  as  giving  them  contract 
rights  in  the  canal,  and  that  it  would  thus  practically  restore  to  the 
treaty  the  substance  of  the  provision  which  the  Senate  had  struck 
out  as  Article  III  of  the  former  treaty.  He  believed  also  that  there 
was  a  strong  national  feeling  against  giving  to  the  other  powers  any- 
thing in  the  nature  of  a  contract  right  in  an  affair  so  peculiarly 
American  as  the  canal;  that  no  other  powers  had  now  any  right  in 
the  premises  or  anything  to  give  up  or  part  with  as  consideration  for 
acquiring  such  a  contract  right;  that  they  are  to  rely  on  the  good 
faith  of  the  United  States  in  its  declaration  to  Great  Britain  in  this 
treaty ;  and  that  it  adopts  the  rules  and  principles  of  neutralization 
there  set  forth.  These  rules  are  adopted  in  the  treaty  with  Great 
Britain  as  a  consideration  for  getting  rid  of  the  Clayton-Bulwer 
treaty,  and  the  only  way  in  which  other  nations  are  bound  by  them 
is  that  they  must  comply  with  them  if  they  would  use  the  canal. 

It  was  also  apparent  that  the  proposed  amendment,  if  accepted, 
would  make  rule  1  more  objectionable  than  the  third  article  of  the 
former  treaty,  which  was  stricken  out  by  the  Senate's  amendment, 
for  that  only  invited  other  powers  to  come  in  and  become  parties  to 
the  contract  after  ratification,  whereas  the  proposed  provision  would 
rather  compel  other  powers  to  come  in  and  become  parties  to  the 
contract  in  the  first  instance  as  a  condition  precedent  to  the  use  of  the 
canal  by  them. 

Upon  due  consideration  of  these  suggestions,  and  at  the  same  time 
to  put  all  the  powers  upon  the  same  footing,  viz,  that  they  could  use 
the  canal  only  by  complying  with  the  rules  of  neutrality  adopted  and 
prescribed — an  amendment  to  Lord  Lansdowne's  amendment  was 
proposed  and  agreed  upon,  viz : 

To  strike  out  from  his  amendment  the  words.  "  which  shall  agree  to  observe  " 
and  substitute  therefor  the  word  "  observing,"  and  in  the  next  line  to  strike  out 
the  words  "  so  agreeing,"  and  to  insert  before  the  word  "  nation  "  the  word 
"  such." 

This  made  the  clause  as  finally  agreed  upon  and  found  in  the 
treaty  as  now  submitted  for  the  consideration  of  the  Senate : 

The  canal  shall  be  free  and  open  to  the  vessels  of  commerce  and  of  tear  of  all 
nations  observing  these  rules  on  terms  of  entire  equality,  so  that  there  shall  be 
no  discrimination  against  any  such  nation,  etc. 

Thus  the  whole  idea  of  contract  right  in  the  other  powers  is  elimi- 
nated, and  the  vessels  of  any  nation  which  shall  refuse  or  fail  to 
observe  the  rules  adopted  and  prescribed  may  be  deprived  of  the  use 
of  the  canal. 


68  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA   CANAL. 

One  other  amendment  proposed  by  Lord  Lansdowne  was  regarded 
by  the  President  as  so  entirely  reasonable  that  it  was  agreed  to  with- 
out discussion.  This  was  the  insertion  at  the  end  of  clause  1  of 
Article  III  the  words :  "  Such  conditions  and  charges  of  traffic  shall 
be  just  and  equitable"  and  the  word  "  convention,"  wherever  it  oc- 
curs, has  been  changed  to  "  treaty." 

It  is  believed  that  this  memorandum  will  put  the  Senate  Com- 
mittee on  Foreign  Relations  in  full  possession  of  the  history  of  all 
changes  in  the  treaty  since  the  action  of  the  Senate  on  the  former 
amendment. 


Mr.  Hay  to  Lord  Pauncefote. 

No.  2316.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  December  16,  1901. 
Excellency:  I  have  the  honor,  as  well  as  the  pleasure,  to  inform 
you  that,  by  its  resolution  of  the  16th  instant,  the  Senate  of  the 
United  States  gave  its  advice  and  consent  to  the  ratification  of  the 
convention  between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  to  facilitate 
the  construction  of  a  ship  canal  to  connect  the  Atlantic  and  Pacific 
Oceans,  which  I  signed  with  you  on  the  18th  ultimo. 

Congratulating  you  on  this  successful  outcome  of  our  labors, 
I  have,  etc., 

John  Hay. 


Lord  Pauncefote  to  Mr.  Hay. 

No.  49.]  British  Embassy, 

Washington,  February  18,  1902. 
Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  inform  you  that  I  have  received  from 
His  Majesty's  Government  the  King's  ratification  of  the  treaty  be- 
tween Great  Britain  and  the  United  States  for  facilitating  the  con- 
struction of  a  ship  canal  to  connect  the  Atlantic  and  Pacific  Oceans, 
which  was  signed  at  Washington  on  the  ISth  of  November  last. 

I  have  consequently  the  honor  to  state  that  if  you  will  be  good 
enough  to  appoint  a  day  and  hour  for  the  exchange  of  the  ratifica- 
tions, it  will  give  me  much  pleasure  to  attend  at  the  State  Depart- 
ment for  that  purpose. 
I  have,  etc, 

Pauncefote. 


Mr.  Hay  to  Lord  Pauncefote. 

No.  2372.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  February  20,  1902. 
Excellency:  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your 
note  No.  49,  of  the  18th  instant,  informing  me  that  you  have  received 
from  His  Majesty's  Government  the  King's  ratification  of  the  treaty 
between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  for  facilitating  the 
construction  of  a  ship  canal  to  connect  the  Atlantic  and  Pacific 
Oceans,  which  we  signed  on  November  18  last. 

If  you  will  kindly  call  at  the  department  to-morrow    (Friday) 
morning  at  10  o'clock,  it  will  give  me  pleasure  to  effect  with  you  the 
exchange  of  ratifications. 
I  have,  etc., 

John  Hay. 


PART  II. 
PAPERS  SUBMITTED. 


Mr.  Root  to  Mr.  Bmiee. 

Department  of  State, 
Washington,  January  8, 1909. 
Dear  Mr.  Ambassador:  I  send  you  confidentially  a  memorandum 
regarding  an  arrangement  which  Ave  are  proposing  to  bring  about 
between  Panama  and  Colombia  and  the  United  States,  and  which  we 
consider  of  importance  as  enabling  the  United  States  to  execute  peace- 
ably the  purposes  of  the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty  concluded  between 
the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  on  November  18,  1901. 
Very  sincerely,  yours, 

Elthu  Root. 


[Inclosure.-] 

Memorandum. 

In  1903,  in  settling  with  Colombia  the  terms  upon  which  the 
United  States  might  obtain  the  opportunity  to  construct  the  Panama 
Canal,  as  contemplated  in  the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty  of  November 
18,  1901,  Mr.  Hay  included  in  the  Hay-Herran  treaty  of  January  22, 
l'.;o:J>,  a  provision  under  which  the  war  vessels  of  Colombia  might 
pass  through  the  canal  free  of  duty.  The  United  States  has  now,  by 
the  use  of  good  offices  and  additional  concessions  on  its  own  part, 
brought  the  Governments  of  the  two  sections  which  at  that  time  con- 
stituted the  Republic  of  Colombia — namely,  Colombia  and  Panama — 
to  the  point  of  entering  into  an  agreement  under  which  Colombia  will 
recognize  the  independence  of  Panama  and  confirm  the  title  which 
Panama  undertook  to  give  to  the  United  States  to  construct  the  canal, 
by  renouncing  all  Colombia's  claims.  The  proposed  agreement  will 
adjust  the  relations  of  the  two  to  the  public  debt  of  Colombia,  arrange 
for  the  settlement  of  the  boundary,  and  provide  for  the  exercise  of 
election  as  to  citizenship,  and  will  constitute  in  general  a  treaty  of 
separation. 

As  a  part  of  this  same  arrangement  of  separation  and  to  help  bring 
it  about,  the  United  States  is  about  to  agree  to  the  continuance  of  the 
right  of  passage  on  the  part  of  Colombia  which  was  formerly  stipu- 
lated in  the  Hay-Herran  treaty.  The  United  States  has  not  been 
unmindful  of  the  provision  of  the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty  under 
Avhich  the  Suez  rules  were  adopted  as  bases  for  the  neutrality  of  the 
canal,  including  the  rule  against  discrimination  between  different 
nations;  but  we  have  assumed  that  that  rule  had  no  relation  to  the 
terms  by  means  of  which  the  title  to  the  site  of  the  canal  and  the 
opportunity  to  build  might  be  obtained. 

69 


70  DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

The  Government  of  the  United  States  will  communicate  a  copy  of 
the  different  treaties  immediately  upon  the  final  settlement  of  their 
terms,  and  hopes  that  the  accomplishment  of  this  very  important  step 
toward  executing  the  purposes  which  the  United  States  and  Great 
Britain  have  shared  for  so  many  years,  and  an  expression  of  which 
is  embodied  in  the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty,  will  be  received  by  Great 
Britain  with  special  satisfaction. 

Department  or  State, 

Washington,  January  8,  1909. 


Mr.  Bryce  to  Mr.  Root. 

British  Embassy, 
Washington,  January  8,  1909. 
Dear  Mr.  Secretary  or  State  :  I  have  to  acknowledge  the  receipt 
of,  and  to  thank  you  for,  your  letter  of  this  clay's  date  inclosing  a 
memorandum  relating  to  the  treaty  contemplated  with  the  Republic 
of  Colombia,  and  have  communicated  the  substance  of  it  by  cable  to 
my  Government. 

I  note  that  the  privilege  proposed  to  be  given  to  the  Republic  of 
Colombia  of  passing  vessels  through  the  Panama  Canal  without  pay- 
ment, to  which  the  memorandum  refers,  is  therein  stated  to  apply 
to  vessels  of  war  only. 

I  am,  dear  Mr.  Secretary  of  State, 
Very,  truly  yours, 

James  Bryce. 


Mr.  Root  to  Mr.  Reid. 

[Telegram.] 

Department  op  State, 
Washington,  January  9,  1909. 
Following  memorandum  was  sent  yesterday  to  Ambassador  Bryce  r1 
*  *  *  *  *  *  * 

The  proposed  treaty  with  Colombia  referred  to  is  not  yet  signed, 
but  when  signed  copy  will  be  forwarded  you.  Meantime,  as  soon  as 
practicable,  explain  situation  to  Sir  Edward  Grey  as  described  in  the 
memorandum.  Tell  him  we  are  making  very  considerable  sacrifices, 
including  payment  of  a  million  and  a  quarter  dollars,  to  clear  the 
title  and  secure  peaceable  possession  of  canal  site.  Discreetly  give  him 
to  understand  that  we  should  be  both  surprised  and  put  out  if  there 
were  any  objection  from  Great  Britain  under  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty, 
the  purpose  of  which  we  are  making  sacrifices  to  accomplish. 
******* 

Root. 

1  Printed  ante. 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  71 

Mr.  Reid  to  Mr.  Root. 

[Telegram.] 

American  Embassy, 
London,  January  11, 1909. 

(Received  11.15  p.  m.) 
No.  350.    Confidential.    January  11 — 11  p.  m.] 

Saw  Sir  Charles  Hardinge,  in  the  absence  of  Sir  Edward  Grey, 
with  reference  to  Panama  arrangement  summarized  in  your  memo- 
randum to  Mr.  Bryce,  as  stated  in  your  cipher  telegram  to  me  <>f 
January  10. 

He  was  familiar  with  memorandum,  and  moment  I  mentioned  it 
said :  "  We  shall  have  to  enter  a  protest." 

I  hastened  to  present  to  him  the  considerations  you  mentioned, 
sacrifices  made,  and  surprise  and  disappointment  felt  that  objections 
should  now  be  made  under  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty. 

I  ventured  to  urge  also  that  the  very  thing  they  now  protested 
against,  the  free  passage  of  Colombian  war  vessels,  had  been  agreed 
to  in  the  Haj^-Herran  treaty,  with  the  full  knowledge  and  assent,  as 
Ave  understood,  of  the  British  Embassy  at  the  time. 

He  did  not  deny  this,  but  said  the  circumstances  were  entirely 
changed,  and  that  this  consideration  was  given  solely  because  the 
canal  was  then  to  pass  through  Colombian  territory. 

I  pointed  out  that  nevertheless  this  had  been  the  foundation  agree- 
ment under  which  we  were  enabled  to  build  the  canal,  and  that  the 
consideration  now  given  was  the  same. 

He  said.  "  Yes;  but  the  country  that  gets  it  is  not  now  the  country 
through  which  the  canal  runs,"  and  insisted  that  for  the  sake  of  the 
precedent  they  should  be  compelled  to  enter  their  protest. 

In  that  case,  I  urged  that  it  should  be  worded  so  as  to  cause  as 
little  embarrassment  as  possible.  He  assured  me  that  we  need  have 
no  apprehensions  on  that  score,  but  insisted  tenaciously  that,  with  a 
view  to  the  future,  it  was  their  duty  to  protest  against  any  inequality 
in  the  treatment  accorded  foreign  nations  in  the  use  of  the  canal,  and 
that  Colombia  was  now  as  much  a  foreign  nation  as  any  other. 

Reid. 


Mr.  Reid  to  Mr.  Roof. 

[Telegram.] 

No.  352.     Confidential.     January  15 — 7  p.  in.  | 

American  Embassy, 
London.  Ja/rmary  !■'>.  1009. 

(Received  7.08  p.  m.) 

*  *  *  *  *  *  * 

Learned  at   the  same  time  that  protest  in   Colombian  matter  i.-, 
not  likely  to  lie  of  a  nature  to  create  much  embarrassment. 

Reid. 


72  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL. 

Mr.  Root  to  the  British  Ambassador. 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  January  16, 1909. 

Dear  Mr.  Ambassador  :  I  think  on  reflection  that  I  better  follow 
your  suggestion  and  put  in  writing  the  gist  of  the  ideas  which  I  con- 
veyed to  you  orally  in  our  interview  last  Thursday  regarding  the 
proposed  concession  to  Colombia  of  the  right  to  pass  her  war  vessels 
through  the  Panama  Canal,  when  completed,  without  the  payment 
of  any  clues  to  the  United  States.  The  view  of  the  United  States 
upon  this  is,  in  substance,  as  follows: 

The  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty  of  November  18,  1901,  provided  for 
the  building  of  a  canal  in  territory  which  was  not  under  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  either  of  the  contracting  parties.  The  title  to  the  land 
through  which  the  canal  was  to  be  built,  the  authority  to  construct 
and  operate,  and  jurisdiction  and  control  over  the  canal  when  fin- 
ished, manifestly  remained  to  be  secured  before  the  purposes  of  the 
treaty  could  be  effected.  The  treaty  said  nothing  about  the  way  in 
which  this  should  be  accomplished.  It  follows  by  necessary  impli- 
cation that  the  agreements  and  arrangements  to  be  made  with  the 
power  or  powers  having  right  to  grant  or  withhold  the  opportunity 
to  construct  and  operate  the  canal  must  be  quite  different  from  the 
mere  application  of  a  scale  of  tolls  to  the  nations  of  the  world  in 
general  which  had  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  the  creation  of  the 
canal.  Such  agreements  are  ex  necessitate  outside  of  the  rule  of 
equality  to  all  the  world  which  was  embodied  in  the  Suez  rules. 

This  view  was  recognized  in  the  Hay-Herran  treaty  of  January 
22,  1903,  in  which  the  United  States  of  Colombia,  while  undertaking 
to  grant  the  right  to  the  construction  of  the  canal,  reserved  the  right 
"  to  pass  their  vessels,  troops,  and  munitions  of  war  at  all  times  with- 
out paying  any  dues  whatever."  This  treaty  was  confirmed  by  the 
Senate  of  the  United  States,  but  failed  of  confirmation  by  the  Con- 
gress of  Colombia.  Then  followed  the  revolution  inaugurated  on 
the  3d  of  November.  1903,  and  the  recognition  of  the  independence 
of  Panama  by  both  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  and  there- 
after the  grant  by  the  Republic  of  Panama  to  the  United  States  of 
various  rights  connected  with  the  canal,  including,  as  well  as  the 
direct  grant,  a  consent  by  Panama  to  the  purchase  by  the  United 
States  of  the  property  and  concessions  of  the  New  Panama  Canal 
Co.,  which  had  been  for  a  long  time  engaged  in  canal  construction  across 
the  Isthmus  and  which  had  rights,  the  acquisition  or  removal  of 
which  was  necessary  to  vest  in  the  United  States  the  right  to  con- 
struct the  canal  in  accordance  with  the  terms  of  the  Hay-Pauncefote 
treaty. 

Notwithstanding  the  grant  by  Panama  in  her  treaty  with  the 
United  States,  there  remained  three  subjects  for  serious  considera- 
tion by  the  United  States  as  affecting  the  peaceable  and  unques- 
tioned title  to  the  property  and  rights,  the  acquisition  of  which  was 
necessary  to  the  execution  of  the  canal  project.  One  of  these  was 
that  there  still  remained  in  force  a  treaty  made  in  L846  between 
the  United  States  and  Colombia,  which  was  in  existence  at  the  time 
the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty  was  made  and  under  which  the  United 
States  remained  under  special  obligation  to  Colombia  in  respect  of 
the  very  status  of  the  canal.     The  second  was  that  the  only  wav  to 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  73 

dispose  of  the  prior  and  conclusive  rights  of  the  French  Panama 
("anal  Co..  which  stood  in  the  way  of  the  construction  of  the  canal 
by  the  United  States  pursuant  to  the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty,  was 
by  purchasing  those  rights  and  becoming  the  successor  of  the  Panama 
Canal  Co.  under  the  concessionary  contracts.  In  those  contracts 
there  were  stipulations  and  reservations  running  to  Colombia,  in- 
cluding rights  of  forfeiture  of  property  and  including  an  ex- 
press stipulation  for  the  right  to  pass  her  war  vessels  through 
the  canal  without  the  payment  of  dues.  The  third  was  the 
fact  that  Colombia  had  continuously  refused  to  recognize  the  inde- 
pendence of  Panama  and  stood  ready  to  retake  possession  of  the 
Isthmus  and  resume  her  control  over  it  the  moment  that  she  was  not 
prevented  by  the  superior  military  and  naval  force  of  the  United 
States,  so  that  the  only  possession  which  was  possible  under  the 
grant  of  Panama  alone  was  the  possession  to  be  continuously  main- 
tained by  force. 

Under  these  circumstances  the  United  States  has  deemed  it  to  be 
its  duty,  in  the  performance  of  the  obligations  which  it  assumed  in 
the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty  with  Great  Britain,  to  fortify  its  title  and 
assure  its  peaceable  possession  of  the  canal  for  the  purposes  of  the 
Hay-Pauncefote  treaty  by  securing  the  assent  of  Colombia  to  the 
separation  of  Panama,  the  renunciation  of  Colombia's  claims,  and 
the  consent  of  Colombia  to  the  necessary  modification  of  the  treaty 
engagements  of  1846  between  the  United  States  and  Colombia.  In 
order  to  accomplish  this  the  United  States  has  found  it  necessary  to 
renew  the  reservation  of  the  specific  right  of  Colombia  to  send  its 
warships  through  the  canal  without  the  payment  of  dues,  which  has 
been  insisted  upon  by  that  country  in  every  concession  and  treaty  she 
has  made  regarding  it  (for  example,  the  Panama  Canal  concession  of 
1878,  Article  VI;  the  Hay-Concha  accepted  proposal  for  a  treaty  be- 
tween the  United  States  and  Colombia  of  April  18,  1902,  sent  by  Mr. 
Hay  to  the  American  Congress  and  printed  as  a  public  document; 
and  the  Hay-Herran  treaty  of  January  22,  1903,  Articles  XVI, 
XYTI,  and  XVIII,  and  also  to  make  the  very  substantial  payment  of 
a  million  and  a  quarter  dollars,  which  the  United  States  proposes  I 
contribute  toward  the  payment  of  Panama  for  the  purpose  of  secur- 
ing these  rights. 

The  United  States  has  considered  not  only  that  in  prescribing  the 
rule  of  equality  in  the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty  the  parties  must  have 
contemplated  the  making  of  special  arrangement  by  the  United 
States  with  Colombia  as  the  necessary  source  of  title,  but  that  the 
right  to  make  such  an  exceptional  arrangement  still  continues,  in 
view  of  Colombia's  continued  special  relation  to  the  title;  and  this 
view  is  supported  by  the  provision  of  the  fourth  article  of  the  Hay- 
Pauncefote  treaty,  which  declares — 

that  no  change  of  territorial  sovereignty  or  of  the  intern.-itioual  relations  of 
the  country  or  countries  traversed  by  the  before-mentioned  canal  shall  affect 
the  generai  principle  of  neutralization  or  the  obligation  of  the  high  contracting 
parties  under  the  present  treaty. 

Of  course,  in  agreeing  to  accord  to  Colombia  this  reservation  the 
United  States  is  not  dealing  with  the  general  subject  of  canal  tolls. 
It  is  treating  Colombia,  for  the  reasons  which  I  have  described,  as 
being  in  a  wholly  exceptional  position,  not  subject  to  the  rule  of 
equality  of  the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty  and  not  to  come  within  any 


74  DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

schedule  of  tolls  which  may  hereafter  be  established,  which  must,  of 
course,  under  the  treaty,  be  equal  for  all  nations  to  whom  the  rule  of 
equality  is  properly  applicable. 

The  United  States  is  especially  desirous  that  its  course  shall  be 
understood  by  Great  Britain  and"  that  there  shall  be  no  thought  on 
the  part  of  that  Government  that  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  is  unmindful  of  its  obligations  under  the  Hay-Pauncefote 
treaty  or  is  willing,  in  any  degree  whatever,  to  fail  in  strict  com- 
pliance with  those  obligations,  and  for  this  reason  I  am  making  this 
explanation  in  the  hope  that  the  Government  of  Great  Britain  will 
agree  with  us  regarding  the  situation  of  Colombia  as  to  the  title  to 
the  canal  to  be  so  exceptional  as  not  to  come  within  the  rule  of 
equality  of  the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty  and  will  agree  that  the  con- 
templated provision  will  constitute  no  precedent  for  the  exception  of 
any  other  nations  from  the  payment  of  equal  dues  for  the  passage  of 
war  vessels  in  accordance  with  such  schedules  as  shall  be  established 
in  accordance  with  the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty. 
Faithfully,  yours, 

Elihu  Root. 


Mr.  Root  to  Mr.  Reid. 

[Telegram.] 

Department  or  State. 
Washington,  January  16,  1909. 
Confidential  and  for  your  own  information  and  guidance  only. 
The  following  letter1  sent  to  Ambassador  Bryce  to-day: 

******* 

I  presume  Bryce  will  mail  it.  Meantime  you  are  at  liberty  to  use 
it  as  you  think  best  in  your  discretion  to  forestall  premature  action 
by  British  Government. 

Your  cable  January  15,  No.  352.  saying  that  protest  in  Colombia 
matter  is  not  likely  to  be  of  nature  to  be  of  much  embarrassment,  is 
reassuring,  but  it  is  important  to  avoid  anything  called  a  protest. 
We  feel  that  the  case  does  not  warrant  any  protest,  and  that  Great 
Britain  instead  of  embarrassing  ought  to  aid  and  encourage  the  con- 
summation of  an  arrangement  so  useful  for  accomplishment  of  the 
purpose  of  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty  and  so  exceptional  in  character. 
Great  Britain  ought  to  consider  that  the  good  faith  of  the  judgment 
of  the  United  States  as  to  the  importance  and  necessity  of  this  ar- 
rangement in  aid  of  the  enterprise  is  proved  by  our  being  willing  not 
only  to  forego  all  dues  from  Colombia,  but  to  pay  a  million  and  a 
quarter  of  dollars  for  the  purpose  of  securing  the  arrangement.  The 
position  of  the  United  States  toward  Great  Britain  in  this  matter 
is  analogous  to  that  of  trustee  securing  advantage  for  the  trust 
bv  means  of  personal  sacrifices  on  his  own  part,  and  any  objection  by 
Great  Britain  would  be  like  a  beneficiary  of  a  trust  taking  the  benefit 
of  the  arrangement  made  by  his  trustee  and  at  the  same  time  making 
a  very  technical  objection  to  his  action.    We  are  confident  that  the 

1  Printed  ante. 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  75 

idea  of  protests  by  Great  Britain  arose  before  the  full  nature  of  the 
arrangement  was  made  known  to  her  and  under  a  misconception  as 
to  its  nature  and  extent. 

Root. 


Mr.  Reid  to  Mr.  Root. 

No.  824.]  American  Embassy,  London. 

January  25,  1909. 

Sir  :  On  receipt  of  your  letter  to  Mr.  Bryce  *  *  *  concerning 
the  passage  of  Colombian  war  vessels  through  the  Panama  Canal,  I 
sought  an  interview  with  the  minister  of  foreign  affairs. 

But,  as  reported  in  my  cipher  telegram  of  the  19th  instant,  Sir 
Edward  Grey  was  absent,  and  not  expected  to  return  much  before 
the  reassembling  of  Parliament.  I  then  had  an  interview  with  Sir 
Charles  Hardinge,  the  permanent  undersecretary,  and  presented 
orally  your  representations  as  to  the  propriety  and  necessity  of  the 
arrangement  with  Colombia  as  forcibly  as  I  could  and  at  consider- 
able length.  Sir  Charles  was  obviously  impressed  by  the  facts,  and 
did  not  insist  so  positively  as  at  our  first  interview  that  Great  Britain 
would  be  compelled  to  protest.  He  assured  me  that  at  any  rate  noth- 
ing in  that  direction  would  be  done  till  there  was  ample  time  to  con- 
sider your  statement  of  the  case.  When  I  pointed  out  the  incon- 
venience of  long  delay  because  of  your  approaching  retirement  he 
asked  if  I  could  not  give  him  a  memorandum  of  your  views  as  I  had 
just  stated  them.  I  promised  to  do  so  at  once,  and  accordingly 
forwarded  it  the  next  day.  He  has  since  advised  me  that  he  sent 
it  at  once  to  Sir  Edward  Grey,  in  the  north  of  England. 

A  copy  of  this  memorandum  is  herewith  inclosed.  You  will  see 
that,  in  view  of  the  danger  of  betraying  our  cipher,  I  felt  bound  to 
condense  it  materially,  and  also  to  put  it  in  the  form  of  a  paraphrase 
instead  of  using  your  words.  I  hope  you  may  find  that  the  argument 
did  not  suffer  too  much  in  this  process. 

We  have  at  least,  by  means  of  these  interviews  and  the  memo- 
randum, secured  the  promptest  attention  and  at  the  same  time  pre- 
vented premature  action. 
I  have,  etc., 

Whitelaw  Reid. 


[Inclosure  to  No.  824.] 

Mr.  Reid  to  Sir  Edward  Grey. 

MEMORANDUM. 

Great  Britain  and  the  United  States  having  no  territory  for  an 
isthmian  canal,  nevertheless  entered  into  a  treaty  looking  to  the  con- 
struction of  one  by  the  United  States. 

They  must  have  contemplated  whatever  arrangements  were  found 
necessary  by  the  United  States  for  securing  the  route  and  authority 
to  build. 


76  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

These  arrangements  could  not  have  been  thought  to  be  involved 
in  any  subsequent  toll  sheet  for  the  canals,  and  a  payment  in  tolls 
due  to  itself  promised  by  the  United  States  in  return  for  the  right 
of  way  could  not  be  considered  a  violation  of  the  rule  of  equality  as 
to  tolls. 

The  Hay-Herran  treaty  promised  such  a  payment,  and  it  was  duly 
ratified  by  the  United  States. 

That  treaty  failing  in  Colombia,  a  revolution  occurred  on  the 
Isthmus.  The  new  State  of  Panama,  after  being  recognized  by 
Great  Britain  and  the  United  States,  gave  consent  to  the  purchase 
by  the  United  States  of  the  concession  granted  long  before  by  Colom- 
bia to  the  French  Panama  Co.  through  territory  now  a  part  of 
Panama.  There  was  no  other  way  to  dispose  of  the  earlier  and  posi- 
tive rights  of  the  French  company.  But  the  concession  thus  taken 
over  included,  among  various  other  obligations,  this  express  agree- 
ment for  freedom  of  tolls  on  the  canal  for  Colombian  war  vessels. 

Under  the  obligations  assumed  in  the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty,  it 
was  the  duty  of  the  United  States  to  get  a  good  title  for  the  canal 
route  and  secure  peaceful  possession  of  the  same. 

But  Colombia  refused  to  recognize  the  independence  of  Panama 
and  stood  ready  to  seize  and  reannex  it  the  moment  the  United  States 
ceased  to  maintain  it  by  force. 

Under  these  circumstances  the  United  States  thought  it  was  dis- 
charging its  duty  under  the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty  in  regularizing 
the  title  to  the  canal  route,  and  in  securing  the  peaceable  acquiescence 
of  Colombia  by  a  large  money  payment  and  by  foregoing  the  tolls 
on  Colombian  war  vessels,  as  required  in  the  French  concession  it 
had  been  forced  to  take  over. 

The  United  States  is  most  desirous  that  Great  Britain  should 
realize  the  necessity  under  which  it  was  placed,  its  full  recognition 
of  all  its  real  obligations  under  the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty,  and  its 
unreserved  agreement  that  the  concession  demanded  by  Colombia  in 
every  treaty  she  has  ever  negotiated  on  this  subject  shall  constitute 
no  precedent  for  aivy  other  nation. 

The  good  faith  of  the  United  States  is  certainly  shown  in  its  will- 
ingness to  lose  these  tolls  and  to  pay  a  large  sum  in  administering  the 
canal  trust  created  between  the  two  parties  to  the  Hay-Pauncefote 
treaty.  As  trustee  it  is  thus  securing  advantage  for  the  trust  by  its 
own  sacrifices.  Great  Britain,  a  beneficiary  of  the  trust,  while  re- 
ceiving the  benefit  of  this  action,  will  surely  not,  on  full  consider- 
ation, interpose  a  mere  technical  objection  to  it  by  anything  in  the 
shape  of  a  protest. 

January  20.  1909. 


Mi  morandum  received  by  the  Secretary  of  State  from  British 
ambassador,  February/  3. 1909. 

I  Not  of  record  in   the  Department  of  State.] 

A  telegram  has  been  received  from  the  foreign  office  informing 
Mr.  Bryce  that  in  view  of  the  special  circumstances  of  the  case  and 
in  view  of  the  explanation  that  Mr.  Root  has  offered  the  Secretary 
of  State  may  lie  informed  that  His  Majesty's  Government,  on  the 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CAXAL.  77 

receipt  of  a  formal  assurance  that  a  precedent  for  similar  and  other 
occasions  shall  not  be  constituted  by  the  special  treatment  granted 
to  Colombia  with  regard  to  free  transit  for  her  warships,  are  ready 
to  forego  the  protest  against  the  infringement  of  the  Hay-Pauncefote 
treaty  which  they  had  intended  to  make. 

This  formal  assurance  and  the  acknowledgment  thereof  -hould  be 
set  forth  in  an  exchange  of  notes. 

The  telegram  further  states  that  Mr.  Bryce  might  further  request 
the  United  States  Government  to  use  their  good  offices  with  the 
Government  of  Colombia  to  persuade  them  to  devote  an  early  in- 
stallment of  the  sum  received  under  the  treaty  of  peace  with  Panama 
to  settle  the  claims  of  British  subjects  against  the  Colombian  Gov- 
ernment. 

It  is  believed  that  the  amount  of  these  claims  is  only  about  £6,000, 
but  the  claimants  are  for  the  most  part  persons  of  the  laboring 
classes  who  can  ill  afford  to  lose  these  sums  and  the  Colombian  Gov- 
ernment have  more  than  once  given  an  assurance  to  His  Majesty's 
Government  that  provision  for  their  payment  would  be  made  by 
the  treatv  under  conteniDlation. 


Mr.  Bacon  to  Mr.  Bryce. 

No.  540.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  February  20,  1909. 
Excellency  :  On  the  8th  of  January,  ultimo.  Secretary  Root  com- 
municated to  you,  confidentially,  a  memorandum  regarding  an  ar- 
rangement then  in  progress  of  negotiation  between  Panama  and 
Colombia  and  the  United  States  which  was  deemed  of  considerable 
importance,  especially  to  us,  because  enabling  the  United  States  to 
execute  peaceably  the  purposes  of  the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty  con- 
cluded between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  on  Xovember 
18,  1901.     That  memorandum  reads  as  follows : 

In  1903,  in  settling  with  Colombia  the  terms  upon  which  the  United  States 
might  obtain  the  opportunity  to  construct  the  Panama  Canal  as  contemplated 
in  the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty  of  November  18,  1901,  Mr.  Hay  included  in  the 
Hay-Herran  treaty  of  January  22,  1903.  a  provision  under  which  the  war  vessels 
of  Colombia  might  pass  through  the  canal  free  of  duty.  The  United  States  has 
now,  by  the  use  of  good  offices  and  additional  concessions  on  its  own  part, 
brought  the  Governments  of  the  two  sections  which  at  that  time  constituted  the 
Republic  of  Colombia,  namely,  Colombia  and  Panama,  to  the  point  of  entering 
into  an  agreement  under  which  Colombia  will  recognize  the  independence  of 
Panama  at  d  confirm  the  title  which  Panama  undertook  to  give  to  the  United 
States  to  construct  the  canal  by  renouncing  all  Colombia's  claims.  The  pro- 
posed agreement  will  adjust  the  relations  of  the  two  to  the  public  debt  of 
Colombia,  arrange  for  the  settlement  of  the  boundary,  and  provide  for  the 
exercise  of  election  as  to  citizenship,  and  will  constitute  in  general  a  treaty  of 
separation. 

As  a  part  of  this  same  arrangement  of  separation  and  to  help  bring  it  about, 
the  United  States  is  about  to  agree  to  the  continuance  of  the  right  of  passage 
on  the  part  of  Colombia  which  was  formerly  stipulated  in  the  Hay-Herran 
treaty.  The  United  States  has  not  been  unmindful  of  the  provision  of  the  Hay- 
Pauncefote  treaty  under  which  the  Suez  rules  were  adopted  as  bases  for  the 
neutrality  of  the  canal,  including  the  rule  against  discriminations  between 
different  nations;  but  we  bare  assume;!  that  that  rule  had  no  relation  to  the 
terms  by  means  of  which  the  title  to  the  site  of  the  canal  and  the  opportunity 
to  build  might  be  obtained. 


78  DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA   CANAL. 

The  Government  of  the  United  States  will  communicate  a  copy  of  the  differ- 
ent treaties  immediately  upon  the  final  settlement  of  their  terms  and  hopes 
that  the  accomplishment  of  this  very  important  step  toward  executing  the  pur- 
poses which  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  have  shared  for  so  many 
years,  and  an  expression  of  which  is  embodied  in  the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty, 
will  be  received  by  Great  Britain  with  special  satisfaction. 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  January  8,  1909. 

The  arrangement  thus  described  took  the  shape  of  formal  treaties, 
which  were  signed  on  the  9th  ultimo,  and  are  now  before  the  Senate 
of  the  United  States  with  o  view  to  the  advice  and  consent  of  that 
body  being  given  to  their  ratification.  They  are  still  under  the  in- 
junction of  secrecy,  but  it  seems  necessary  and  proper  to  a  full  under- 
standing of  the  foregoing  memorandum  and  the  subsequent  compari- 
son of  views  between  the  Governments  of  the  United  States  and 
Great  Britain  that  the  provision  thereof  pertinent  to  the  present 
communication  should  be  cited  herein : 

Article  II  of  the  treaty  between  the  United  States  and  Colombia 
reads : 

In  consideration  of  the  provisions  and  stipulations  hereinafter  contained  it  is 
agreed,  as  follows : 

The  Republic  of  Colombia  shall  have  liberty  at  all  times  to  convey  through 
the  ship  canal  now  in  course  of  construction  by  the  United  States  across  the 
Isthmus  of  Panama  the  troops,  materials  for  war,  and  ships  of  war  of  the 
Republic  of  Colombia,  without  paying  any  duty  to  the  United  States,  even  in 
the  case  of  an  international  war  between  Colombia  and  another  country. 

While  the  said  interoceanic  canal  is  in  course  of  construction  the  troops  and 
materials  for  war  of  the  Republic  of  Colombia,  even  in  the  case  of  an  inter- 
national war  between  Colombia  and  any  other  country,  shall  be  transported 
on  the  railway  between  Ancon  and  Cristobal,  or  on  any  other  railway  substituted 
therefor,  upon  the  same  conditions  on  which  similar  service  is  rendered  to  the 
United  States. 

The  officers,  agents,  and  employees  of  the  Government  of  Colombia  shall, 
during  the  same  period,  be  entitled  to  free  passage  upon  the  said  railway  across 
the  Isthmus  of  Panama  upon  due  notification  to  the  railway  officials  and  the 
production  of  evidence  of  their  official  character. 

The  foregoing  provisions  of  this  article  shall  not,  however,  apply  in  case  of 
war  between  Colombia  and  Panama. 

After  conference  with  you  on  the  subject,  Secretary  Hoot  am- 
plified the  ideas  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States  on  the  sub- 
ject in  a  personal  note  to  you,  dated  January  16,  which  so  fully  sets 
forth  the  policy  and  motives  of  the  United  States  in  the  premises 
that  I  can  not  do  better  than  cite  it  texually.  as  follows: 

Department  of  State, 
Washington,  January  16,  1909. 

Dear  Mr.  Ambassador  :  I  think,  on  reflection,  that  I  should  follow  your  sug- 
gestion and  put  in  writing  the  gist  of  the  ideas  which  I  conveyed  to  you  orally 
in  our  interview  last  Thursday  regarding  the  proposed  concession  to  Colombia 
of  the  right  to  pass  her  war  vessels  through  the  Panama  Canal,  when  completed, 
without  the  payment  of  any  dues  to  the  United  States.  The  view  of  the  United 
States  upon  this  is,  in  substance,  as  follows : 

The  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty  of  November  IS.  1901,  provided  for  the  building  of 
a  canal  in  territory  which  was  not  under  the  jurisdiction  of  either  of  the  con- 
tracting parties.  The  title  to  the  land  through  which  the  canal  was  to  be  built, 
the  authority  to  construct  and  operate,  and  jurisdiction  and  control  over  the 
canal  when  finished  manifestly  remained  to  be  secured  before  the  purposes  of 
the  treaty  could  be  effected.  The  treaty  said  nothing  about  the  way  in  which 
this  should  be  accomplished.  It  follows  by  necessary  implication  that  the  agree- 
ments and  arrangements  to  be  made  with  the  power  or  powers  having  right  to 
grant  or  withhold  the  opportunity  to  construct  and  operate  the  canal  must  be 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  79 

quite  different  from  the  mere  application  of  a  scale  of  tolls  to  the  nations  of 
the  world  in  general  which .  had  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  the  creation  of 
the  canal.  Such  agreements  are  ex  necessitate  outside  of  the  rule  of  equality 
to  all  the  world  which  was  embodied  in  the  Suez  rules. 

This  view  was  recognized  in  the  Hay-Herran  treaty  of  January  22,  1903, 
in  which  the  United  States  of  Colombia,  while  undertaking  to  grant  the  right 
to  the  construction  of  the  canal,  reserved  the  right  "  to  pass  their  vessels,  troops, 
and  munitions  of  war  at  all  times  without  paying  any  dues  whatever."  This 
treaty  was  confirmed  by  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  but  failed  of  con- 
firmation by  the  Congress  of  Colombia.  Then  followed  the  revolution  in- 
augurated on  the  3d  of  November,  1903,  and  the  recognition  of  the  independence 
of  Panama  by  both  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain,  and  thereafter  the 
grant  by  the  Republic  of  Panama  to  the  United  States  of  various  rights  con- 
nected with  the  canal,  including  as  well  as  the  direct  grant  a  consent  by 
Panama  to  the  purchase  by  the  United  States  of  the  property  and  concessions 
of  the  New  Panama  Canal  Co.,  which  had  been  for  a  long  time  engaged  in 
canal  construction  across  the  Isthmus,  and  whictfc  had  rights  the  acquisition  or 
removal  of  which  was  necessary  to  vest  in  the  United  States  the  right  to  con- 
struct the  canal  in  accordance  with  the  terms  of  the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty. 

Notwithstanding  the  grant  by  Panama  in  her  treaty  with  the  United  States, 
there  remained  three  subjects  for  serious  consideration  by  the  United  States 
as  affecting  the  peaceable  and  unquestioned  title  to  the  property  and  rights 
the  acquisition  of  which  was  necessary  to  the  execution  of  the  canal  project. 
One  of  these  was  that  there  still  remained  in  force  a  treaty  made  in  1S46  be- 
tween the  United  States  and  Colombia,  which  was  in  existence  at  the  time  the 
Hay-Pauncefote  treaty  was  made  and  under  which  the  United  States  remained 
under  special  obligation  to  Colombia  in  respect  of  the  very  status  of  the  canal. 
The  second  was  that  the  only  way  to  dispose  of  the  prior  and  conclusive  rights 
of  the  French  Panama  Canal  Co.,  which  stood  in  the  way  of  the  construction 
of  the  canal  by  the  United  States  pursuant  to  the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty,  was 
by  purchasing  these  rights  and  becoming  the  successor  of  the  Panama  Canal 
Co.  under  the  concessionary  contracts.  In  those  contracts  there  were  stipu- 
lations and  reservations  running  to  Colombia,  including  rights  of  forfeiture  of 
property,  and  including  an  express  stipulation  for  the  right  to  pass  her  war 
vessels  through  the  canal  without  the  payment  of  dues.  The  third  was  the 
fact  that  Colombia  had  continuously  refused  to  recognize  the  independence  of 
Panama  and  stood  ready  to  retake  possession  of  the  Isthmus  and  resume  her 
control  over  it  the  moment  that  she  was  not  prevented  by  the  superior  military 
and  naval  force  of  the  United  States;  so  that  the  only  possession  which  was 
possible  under  the  grant  of  Panama  alone  was  the  possession  to  be  continuously 
maintained  by  force. 

Under  these  circumstances  the  United  States  has  deemed  it  to  be  its  duty 
in  the  performance  of  the  obligations  which  it  assumed  in  the  Hay-Pauncefote 
treaty  with  Great  Britain,  to  fortify  its  title  and  assure  its  peaceable  posses- 
sion of  the  canal  for  the  purposes  of  the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty  by  securing 
(he  assent  of  Colombia  to  the  separation  of  Panama,  the  renunciation  of 
Colombia's  claims,  and  the  consent  of  Colombia  to  the  necessary  modification 
of  the  treaty  engagements  of  1S4G  between  the  United  States  and  Colombia. 
In  order  to  accomplish  this  the  United  States  has  found  it  necessary  to  renew 
the  reservation  of  the  specific  right  of  Colombia  to  send  its  warships  through 
the  canal  without  the  payment  of  dues,  which  has  been  insisted  upon  by  that 
country  in  every  concession  and  treaty  she  has  made  regarding  it  (for  example, 
the  Panama  Canal  concession  of  1878,  Article  VI;  the  Hay-Concha  accepted 
proposal  for  a  treaty  between  the  United  States  and  Colombia  of  April  18» 
1902.  sent  by  Mr.  Hay  to  the  American  Congress  and  printed  as  a  public  docu- 
ment :  and  the  Hay-Herran  treaty  of  January  22,  1903,  Articles  XVI,  XVII,  and 
XVIII).  and  also  to  make  the  very  substantial  payment  of  a  million  and  a 
quarter  dollars,  which  the  United  States  proposes  to  contribute  toward  the  pay- 
ment of  Panama  for  the  purpose  of  securing  these  rights. 

The  United  States  has  considered  not  only  that  in  prescribing  the  rule  of 
equality  in  the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty  the  parties  must  have  contemplated 
the  making  of  special  arrangement  by  the  United  States  with  Colombia  as  the 
necessary  source  of  title,  but  that  the  right  to  make  such  an  exceptional 
arrangement  still  continues  in  view  of  Colombia's  continued  special  relation 
to  the  title:  and  this  view  is  supported  by  the  provision  of  the  fourth  article 
of  the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty,  which  declares  that  no  change  of  territorial 
sovereignty    or   of   the    international    relations   of   the   country    or    countries 


80  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL. 

traversed  by  the  before-mentioned  canal  shall  affect  the  general  principle  of 
neutralization  or  the  obligation  of  the  high  contracting  parties  under  the 
present  treaty. 

Of  course,  in  agreeing  to  accord  to  Colombia  this  reservation,  the  United 
States  is  not  dealing  with  the  general  subject  of  canal  tolls.  It  is  treating 
Colombia  for  the  reasons  which  I  have  described,  as  being  in  a  wholly  ex- 
ceptional position,  not  subject  to  the  rule  of  equality  of  the  Hay-Pauncefote 
treaty,  and  not  to  come  within  any  schedule  of  tolls  which  may  hereafter  be 
established,  which  must,  of  course,  under  the  treaty,  be  equal  for  all  nations  to 
whom  the  rule  of  equality  is  properly  applicable. 

The  United  States  is  especially  desirous  that  its  course  shall  be  understood 
by  Great  Britain,  and  that  there  shall  be  no  thought  on  the  part  of  that  Gov- 
ernment that  the  Government  of  the  United  States  is  unmindful  of  its  obliga- 
tions under  the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty,  or  is  willing,  in  any  degree  whatever,  to 
fail  in  strict  compliance  with  those  obligations,  and  for  this  reason  I  am  making 
this  explanation  in  the  hope  that  the  Government  of  Great  Britain  will  agree 
with  us  regarding  the  situation"of  Colombia  as  to  the  title  to  the  canal  to  be  so 
exceptional  as  not  to  come  within  the  rule  of  equality  of  the  Hay-Pauncefote 
treaty,  and  will  agree  that  the  contemplated  provision  will  constitute  no  prece- 
dent for  the  exception  of  any  other  nations  from  the  payment  of  equal  dues 
for  the  passage  of  war  vessels  in  accordance  with  such  schedules  as  shall  be 
established  in  accordance  with  the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty. 
Faithfully,  yours. 

Elihu  Root. 

In  the  meantime  the  ambassador  of  the  United  States  at  London 
had  held  similar  conference  with  the  foreign  office  and  communicated 
our  views  in  a  memorandum  dated  January  20,  in  which  the  consid- 
erations above  set  forth  were  substantially  reproduced. 

I  have  now  had  the  pleasure  to  receive  from  you,  on  the  3d  instant, 
an  aide  memoire  confirming  your  oral  communication  of  that  day, 
to  the  effect  that  you  had  been  instructed  by  the  foreign  office,  in  view 
of  the  special  circumstances  of  the  case  and  in  view  of  the  explanation 
that  Mr.  Eoot  had  offered,  to  inform  me  that  His  Majesty's  Govern- 
ment, on  the  receipt  of  a  formal  assurance  that  a  precedent  for  similar 
and  other  occasions  shall  not  be  constituted  by  the  special  treatment 
granted  to  Colombia  with  regard  to  free  transit  for  her  warships, 
are  ready  to  forego  the  protest  against  the  infringement  of  the  Hay- 
Pauncefote  treaty  which  they  had  intended  to  make.  You  added  a 
proposal  that  this  formal  assurance  and  the  acknowledgment  thereof 
should  be  set  forth  in  an  exchange  of  notes. 

Being  thus  in  accord  as  to  what  is  mutually  understood  to  be  an 
exceptional  contingency  growing  out  of  the  special  circumstances  of 
the  case,  and  is,  as  explained  by  Mr.  Root,  a  necessity  toward  the 
realization  of  the  purpose  for  which  the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty  was 
concluded,  I  have  much  pleasure  in  responding  to  your  proposal  by 
giving,  on  the  part  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  through 
you.  to  His  Majesty's  Government,  formal  confirmation  of  the  assur- 
ance heretofore  given  to  you  by  Secretary  Root,  that  should  the  con- 
templated provision  in  favor  of  Colombia  for  the  passage  of  Colom- 
bian warships  through  the  Panama  Canal  become  effective  through 
the  consummation  of  the  treaty  by  ratification  and  exchange  it  will 
constitute  no  precedent  for  the  exception  of  any  other  nations  from 
the  payment  of  equal  dues  for  the  passage  of  Avar  vessels  in  accord- 
ance with  such  schedules  as  shall  be  established  in  conformity  with 
the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty. 

Your  acknowledgment  and  acceptance  of  this  formal  assurance 
will  make  it  clear  by  exchange  of  notes  that  the  Government  of  Great 
Britain  agrees  with  the  Government  of  the  United  States  in  regard- 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  81 

ing  the  situation  of  Colombia  as  to  the  title  to  the  canal  to  be  so  ex- 
ceptional as  not  to  come  within  the  rule  of  equality  of  the  Hay- 
Pauncefote  treaty. 
I  have,  etc., 

Robert  Bacon. 

Mr.  Bryce  to  Mr.  Bacon. 

No.  45.]  British  Embassy, 

Washington,  February  2^  1909. 

Sir  :  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  receipt  of  your  note  No.  540, 
of  the  20th  instant,  on  the  subject  of  the  treaty  between  the  United 
States  and  the  Republic  of  Colombia,  and  to  say  in  reply  that  His 
Majesty's  Government  are  glad  to  receive  the  fuil  explanation  given 
by  you  of  the  view  which  the  Government  of  the  United  States  take 
of  the  circumstances  which  appear  to  them  to  place  the  Republic  of 
Colombia  in  a  wholly  different  relation  to  the  Panama  Canal  from 
that  in  which  other  countries  stand,  and  which,  as  they  conceive,  dis- 
tinguish the  concession  to  that  Republic  of  exceptional  treatment  from 
any  case  in  which  the  question  of  making  a  similar  concession  to  any 
other  country  could  hereafter  arise.  Without  entering  on  any  dis- 
cussion of  the  argument  by  which  the  view  of  your  Government  is 
supported  and  illustrated,  His  Majesty's  Government  are  content  to 
note  that  the  United  States  Government  hold  that  the  right  of  the 
free  passage  for  warships  which  the  present  treaty  proposes  to  extend 
to  Colombia  is  deemed  by  them  to  grow  out  of  the  entirely  special  and 
exceptional  position  of  Colombia  toward  the  canal  and  the  title 
thereto,  and  accordingly  does  not  constitute  a  precedent,  and  will  not 
hereafter  be  drawn  into  a  precedent,  for  the  exception  of  any  other 
nation  from  the  payment  of  equal  dues  for  the  passage  of  war  vessels 
in  accordance  with  such  schedules  as  shall  be  hereafter  constituted  in 
conformity  with  the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty,  or  for  any  other  conces- 
sion of  a  special  nature  to  Colombia  or  to  any  other  power. 

I  have  accordingly  the  honor  of  stating  to  you  that  His  Majesty's 
Government  consider  that  they  can  forego  the  making  of  such  a 
protest  as  they  had  formerly  contemplated,  and  that  they  accept  the 
assurance  contained  in  your  note. 
I  have,  etc., 

James  Bryce. 

42112— S.  I  >oc  474,  G3-2 6 


PART  III. 
PAPERS  SUBMITTED. 


Charge  d?  Affaires  Innes  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

British  Embassy, 
Kineo,  Me.,  July  8,  1912. 

Sir:  The  attention  of  His  Majesty's  Government  has  been  called  to 
the  various  proposals  that  have  from  time  to  time  been  made  for  the 
purpose  of  relieving  American  shipping  from  the  burden  of  the  tolls 
to  be  levied  on  vessels  passing  through  the  Panama  Canal,  and  these 
proposals,  together  with  the  arguments  that  have  been  used  to  sup- 
port them  have  been  carefully  considered  with  a  view  to  the  bearing 
on  them  of  the  provisions  of  the  treaty  between  the  United  States 
and  Great  Britain  of  November  18.  1901. 

The  proposals  may  be  summed  up  as  follows : 

(1)  To  exempt  all  American  shipping  from  the  tolls;  (2)  to  re- 
fund to  all  American  ships  the  tolls  which  they  may  have  paid;  (3) 
to  exempt  American  ships  engaged  in  the  coastwise  trade;  (4)  to 
repay  the  tolls  to  American  ships  engaged  in  the  coastwise  trade. 

The  proposal  to  exempt  all  American  shipping  from  the  payment 
of  the  tolls  would,  in  the  opinion  of  His  Majesty's  Government, 
involve  an  infraction  of  the  treaty,  nor  is  there,  in  their  opinion, 
any  difference  in  principle  between  charging  tolls  only  to  refund 
them  and  remitting  tolls  altogether.  The  result  is  the  same  in  either 
case,  and  the  adoption  of  the  alternative  method  of  refunding  the 
tolls  in  preference  to  that  of  remitting  them,  while  perhaps  comply- 
ing with  the  letter  of  the  treaty,  would  still  contravene  its  spirit. 

It  has  been  argued  that  a  refund  of  the  tolls  would  merely  be 
equivalent  to  a  subsidy  and  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  Hay-Paunce- 
fote  treaty  which  limits  the  right  of  the  United  States  to  subsidize 
its  shipping.  It  is  true  that  there  is  nothing  in  that  treaty  to  pre- 
vent the  United  States  from  subsidizing  its  shipping,  and  if  it 
granted  a  subsidy  His  Majesty's  Government  could  not  be  in  a  posi- 
tion to  complain.  But  there  is  a  great  distinction  between  a  general 
subsidy,  either  to  shipping  at  large  or  to  shipping  engaged  in  any 
given  trade,  and  a  subsidy  calculated  particularly  with  reference  to 
the  amount  of  user  of  the  canal  by  the  subsidized  lines  or  vessels.  If 
such  a  subsidy  were  granted  it  would  not,  in  the  opinion  of  His 
Majesty's  Government,  be  in  accordance  with  the  obligations  of  the 
treaty. 

As  to  the  proposal  that  exemption  shall  be  given  to  vessels  engaged 
in  the  coastwise  trade,  a  more  difficult  question  arises.  If  the  trade 
should  be  so  regulated  as  to  make  it  certain  that  only  bona  fide  coast- 
wise traffic  which  is  reserved  for  United  States  vessels  would  be 
benefited  by  this  exemption,  it  may  be  that  no  objection  could  be 
taken.     But  it  appears  to  my  Government  that  it  would  be  impossible 

82 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  8S 

to  frame  regulations  which  would  prevent  the  exemption  from  result- 
ing, in  fact,  in  a  preference  to  United  States  shipping  and  conse- 
quently in  an  infraction  of  the  treaty. 
I  have,  etc., 

A.  Mitchell  Innes. 


Mr.  Innes  to  Mr.  Knox. 

British  Embassy, 
Washington,  August  27, 1912. 

Sir  :  On  the  8th  July  I  had  the  honor  to  present  to  the  Government 
of  the  United  States  the  views  of  His  Majesty's  Government  on  cer- 
tain proposals  which  had  been  formulated  with  the  object  of  reliev- 
ing United  States  ships  using  the  Panama  Canal  from  the  payment 
of  tolls,  while  levying  such  tolls  on  foreign  ships. 

In  view  of  the  bill  which  has  now  been  passed  and  of  the  memo- 
randum issued  by  the  President  on  signing  it,  I  am  instructed  to 
inform  you  that  His  Majesty's  Government  adhere  to  the  views  ex- 
pressed in  that  note,  and  that  when  His  Majesty's  Government  have 
had  time  to  consider  fully  the  act  and  the  memorandum  a  further 
communication  will  be  made  to  you  on  the  subject. 

I  am  instructed  to  add  at  the  same  time  that  should  there  even- 
tually be  a  difference  between  the  two  countries  as  to  the  correct  in- 
terpretation of  the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty  which  can  not  be  settled 
by  other  means,  His  Majesty's  Government,  would  then  ask  that  it 
should  be  referred  to  arbitration  in  accordance  with  the  provisions 
of  the  existing  arbitration  treaty  concluded  in  1908. 
I  have,  etc., 


Hon.  Philander  C.  Knox, 

Secretary  of  State. 


A.  Mitchell  Innes. 


Mr.  Wilson  to  Mr.  Innes. 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  August  30,  1912. 
Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  note  of 
the  27th  instant  in  further  expression  of  the  views  of  His  Britannic 
Majesty's  Government  concerning  the  relieving  of  American  vessels 
using  the  Panama  Canal  from  the  payment  of  tolls. 

Due  note  has  been  taken  of  the  information  which  you  communicate 
by  instruction  of  your  Government  that  His  Majesty's  Government 
adhere  to  the  views  expressed  in  your  note  of  the  8th  ultimo  and  that 
when  His  Majesty's  Government  has  had  time  to  consider  fully  the 
act  and  the  memorandum  issued  by  the  President  upon  signing  the 
act  a  further  communication  will  be  made  to  this  Government  on  the 
subject. 

I  have,  etc., 

Huntington  Wilson. 

Acting  Secretary  of  State. 


84  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CAXAL. 

Mr.  Phillips  to  Mr.  Knox. 

No.  2121 .]  American  Embassy. 

London,  October  11.  1912. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  report  that,  in  reply  to  a  question  asked 
yesterday  in  the  House  of  Commons  respecting  the  Panama  Canal 
dues,  Sir  Edward  Grey  announced  the  action  which  the  Government 
had  taken  during  the  passage  of  the  bill  through  Congress  and  ex- 
plained that  in  his  communication  to  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  he  had  said  that  should  there  eventually  be  a  difference  between 
the  two  countries  respecting  the  interpretation  of  the  Hay-Pauncefote 
treaty  that  could  not  be  settled  by  other  means  His  Majesty's  Gov- 
ernment would  ask  that  it  be  referred  to  arbitration  in  accordance 
with  the  provisions  of  the  existing  arbitration  treaty  concluded  with 
the  United  States  in  1008. 

Sir  E.  Grey  added  that  the  whole  subject  was  one  of  great  im- 
portance and.  together  with  the  opinions  of  the  legal  advisers  of  the 
Crown,  is  now  under  the  consideration  of  His  Majesty's  Government. 

I  beg  to  inclose  herewith  the  questions  and  answers  referred  to  as 
they  appear  in  this  morning's  Times. 
I  have,  etc.. 

Wtcitam  Philltps. 


[Inelosure.] 
[From   I. oik]. in  Times,   October    M,    L912.     The  Panama  Canal  dues.] 

THE  PANAMA    CANAL  DUES. 

Mr.  Hewins  (Hereford,  opp. )  asked  the  secretary  of  state  for 
foreign  affairs  whether  he  had  received  any  definite  reply  to  the  rep- 
resentations made  to  the  Government  of  the  United  States  in  regard 
to  the  bill  which  was  then  passing  through  Congress  for  regulating 
the  Panama  Canal  dues;  and  whether  His  Majesty's  Government 
were  making  any  further  representations,  now  that  the  bill  had  be- 
come law,  so  as  to  secure  equitable  treatment  for  British  and  Cana- 
dian ships. 

Sir  E.  Grey.  The  Panama  Canal  bill  underwent  some  alterations  in 
the  course  of  its  passage  through  Congress,  and  after  it  was  passed 
toward  the  end  of  August  we  informed  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  that  we  would  address  a  communication  to  them  after  we  had 
received  and  had  time  to  consider  the  full  text  of  the  bill  as  signed 
by  the  President  and  his  memorandum  respecting  it;  it  was  added  that 
should  there  eventually  be  a  difference  between  the  two  countries  re- 
specting the  interpretation  of  the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty  that  could 
not  be  settled  by  any  other  means,  we  should  ask  that  it  be  referred 
to  arbitration  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  the  existing  arbi- 
tration treaty  concluded  with  the  United  States  in  1008.  The  whole 
subject  is  one  of  great  importance  and,  together  with  the  views  of 
the  legal  advisers  of  the  Crown  upon  it,  is  now  under  consideration 
of  His  Majesty's  Government.  As  soon  as  we  are  in  a  position  to 
do  so  we  shall  be  glad  to  make  a  further  statement  to  the  House. 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL.  85 

Sir  C.  Hunter  (Bath,  opp.).  Has  the  right  honorable  gentleman 
noticed  the  remark  of  President  Taft  that  British  representation  was 
made  rather  tardily? 

Sir.  E.  Grey.  I  have  not  seen  that  remark.  L  shall  be  very  glad 
to  know  the  date  when  that  remark  was  made,  for  the  bill  would  not 
pass  in  its  final  form,  which  is  the  important  matter,  until  toward  the 
end  of  August,  and  immediately  after  the  receipt  of  the  news  that  the 
bill  had  passed  wre  stated  that  we  would  consider  it  in  its  final  form 
and  made  a  further  communication. 

Mr.  Hewins.  Did  not  the  British  Government  make  representations 
before  the  bill  was  passed  ? 

Sir.  E.  Grey.  It  is  quite  true  that  we  did  express  our  views  while 
the  bill  was  in  progress  through  Congress,  but  it  was  impossible  to 
make  a  final  communication  with  regard  to  a  bill  which  was  then 
being  shaped,  and  we  expressly  stated  that  Ave  would  address  a  fur- 
ther communication  after  the  bill  had  readied  its  final  form  and  had 
been  considered. 

Mr.  Lee  (Hants,  Fareham  opp.).  Will  the  right  honorable  gen- 
tleman consider  the  advisability  of  postponing  those  further  repre- 
sentations until  after  the  United  States  elections? 

Sir.  E.  Grey.  The  subject  is  one  of  great  importance,  and  when 
we  do  make  our  communication  it  ought  to  be  the  result  of  the  very 
fullest  consideration  of  all  legal  points  of  view.  That  we  hope  to 
complete  this  month,  and  we  shall  address  our  communication  then  to 
the  United  States.  Of  course.  I  can  not  say  that  it  will  be  dependent 
upon  internal  affairs  in  the  United  States,  but  it  must  take  a  little 
time. 


The  Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs  of  Great  Britain  to 
A  m  h  ass  a  do  /  ■  B  ryce . 

[Handed  to  the  Secretary  of  State  by  the  British  ambassador  Decem- 
ber 9,  1912.] 

Foreign  Office,  November  14,  1912. 

Sir:  Your  excellency  will  remember  that  on  the  8th  July.  1912,  Mr. 
Mitchell  Innes  communicated  to  the  Secretary  of  State  the  objections 
which  His  Majesty's  Government  entertained  to  the  legislation  re- 
lating to  the  Panama  ("anal,  which  was  then  under  discussion  in 
Congress,  and  that  on  the  27th  August,  after  the  passing  of  the 
Panama  Canal  act  and  the  issue  of  the  President's  memorandum  on 
signing  it,  he  informed  Mr.  Knox  that  when  His  Majesty's  Govern- 
ment had  had  time  to  consider  fully  the  act  and  the  memorandum 
a  further  communication  would  be  made  to  him. 

Since  that  date  the  text  of  the  act  and  the  memorandum  of  the 
President  have  received  attentive  consideration  at  the  hands  of  His 
Majesty's  Government.  A  careful  study  of  the  President's  memo- 
randum has  convinced  me  that  he  has  not  fully  appreciated  the 
British  point  of  view,  and  has  misunderstood  Mr.  Mitchell  Tnnes's 
note  of  the  8th  July.  The  President  argues  upon  the  assumption 
that  it  is  the  intention  of  His  Majesty's  Government  to  place  upon 
the  Hav-Pauncefote  treaty  an   interpretation  which   would   prevent 


86  DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

the  United  States  from  granting  subsidies  to  their  own  shipping 
passing  through  the  canal,  and  which  would  place  them  at  a  dis- 
advantage as  compared  with  other  nations.  This  is  not  the  case; 
His  Majesty's  Government  regard  equality  of  all  nations  as  the 
fundamental  principle  underlying  the  treaty  of  1901  in  the  same  way 
that  it  was  the  basis  of  the  Suez  Canal  convention  of  1888,  and  they 
do  not  seek  to  deprive  the  United  States  of  any  liberty  which  is  open 
either  to  themselves  or  to  any  other  nation;  nor  do  they  find  either 
in  the  letter  or  in  the  spirit  of  the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty  any  sur- 
render by  either  of  the  contracting  powers  of  the  right  to  encourage 
its  shipping  or  its  commerce  by  such  subsidies  as  it  may  deem 
expedient. 

The  terms  of  the  President's  memorandum  render  it  essential  that 
I  should  explain  in  some  detail  the  view  which  His  Majesty's  Gov- 
ernment take  as  to  what  is  the  proper  interpretation  of  the  treaty, 
so  as  to  indicate  the  limitations  which  they  consider  it  imposes  upon 
the  freedom  of  action  of  the  United  States,  and  the  points  in  which 
the  Panama  Canal  act,  as  enacted,  infringes  what  His  Majesty's 
Government  hold  to  be  their  treaty  rights. 

The  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty  does  not  stand  alone;  it  was  the 
corollary  of  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty  of  1850.  The  earlier  treaty 
was,  no  doubt,  superseded  by  it,  but  its  general  principle,  as  em- 
bodied in  article  8,  was  not  to  be  impaired.  The  object  of  the  later 
treaty  is  clearly  shown  by  its  preamble ;  it  was  "  to  facilitate  the 
construction  of  a  ship  canal  to  connect  the  Atlantic  and  Pacific 
Oceans  by  whatever  route  may  be  deemed  expedient,  and  to  that 
end  to  remove  any  objection  which  may  arise  out  of  the  Clayton- 
Bulwer  treaty  to  the  construction  of  such  canal  under  the  auspices 
of  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  without  impairing  the 
general  principle  of  neutralization  established  in  article  8  of  that 
convention."  It  was  upon  that  footing,  and  upon  that  footing 
alone,  that  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty  was  superseded. 

Under  that  treaty  both  parties  had  agreed  not  to  obtain  any 
exclusive  control  over  the  contemplated  ship  canal,  but  the  impor- 
tance of  the  great  project  was  fully  recognized,  and  therefore  the 
construction  of  the  canal  by  others  was  to  be  encouraged,  and  the 
canal  when  completed  was  to  enjoy  a  special  measure  of  protection 
on  the  part  of  both  the  contracting  parties. 

Under  article  8  the  two  powers  declared  their  desire,  in  entering 
into  the  convention,  not  only  to  accomplish  a  particular  object,  but 
also  to  establish  a  general  principle,  and  therefore  agreed  to  extend 
their  protection  to  any  practicable  transisthmian  communication, 
either  by  canal  or  railway,  and  either  at  Tehuantepec  or  Panama, 
provided  that  those  who  constructed  it  should  impose  no  other 
charges  or  conditions  of  traffic  than  the  two  Governments  should 
consider  just  and  equitable,  and  that  the  canal  or  railway,  "being 
•open  to  the  subjects  and  citizens  of  Great  Britain  and  the  United 
States  on  equal  terms,  should  also  be  open  to  the  subjects  of  any 
other  State  which  was  willing  to  join  in  the  guaranty  of  joint 
protection." 

So  long  as  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty  was  in  force,  therefore, 
the  position  was  that  both  parties  to  it  had  given  up  their  power  of 
independent  action,  because  neither  was  at  liberty  itself  to  construct 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  87 

the  canal  and  thereby  obtain  the  exclusive  control  which  such  con- 
struction would  confer.  It  is  also  clear  that  if  the  canal  had  been 
constructed  while  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty  was  in  force,  it  would 
have  been  open,  in  accordance  with  article  8,  to  British  and  United 
States  ships  on  equal  terms,  and  equally  clear,  therefore,  that  the 
tolls  leviable  on  such  ships  would  have  been  identical. 

The  purpose  of  the  United  States  in  negotiating  the  Hay-Paunce- 
fote  treaty  was  to  recover  their  freedom  of  action,  and  obtain  the 
right,  which  they  had  surrendered,  to  construct  the  canal  them- 
selves; this  is  expressed  in  the  preamble  to  the  treaty,  but  the  com- 
plete liberty  of  action  consequential  upon  such  construction  was  to 
be  limited  by  the  maintenance  of  the  general  principle  embodied  in 
article  8  of  the  earlier  treaty.  That  principle,  as  shown  above,  was 
one  of  equal  treatment  for  both  British  and  United  States  ships, 
and  a  study  of  the  language  of  article  8  shows  that  the  word  "  neu- 
tralization," in  the  preamble  of  the  later  treaty,  is  not  there  confined 
to  belligerent  operations,  but  refers  to  the  system  of  equal  rights  for 
which  article  8  provides. 

If  the  wording  of  the  article  is  examined  it  will  be  seen  that  there 
is  no  mention  of  belligerent  action  in  it  at  all.  Joint  protection  and 
equal  treatment  are  the  only  matters  alluded  to,  and  it  is  to  one,  or 
both,  of  these  that  neutralization  must  refer.  Such  joint  protection 
has  always  been  understood  by  His  Majesty's  Government  to  be 
one  of  the  results  of  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty  of  which  the  United 
States  was  most  anxious  to  get  rid,  and  they  can  scarcely  therefore 
believe  that  it  was  such  joint  protection  that  the  United  States  were 
willing  to  keep  alive,  and  to  which  they  referred  in  the  preamble 
of  the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty.  It  certainly  was  not  the  intention  of 
His  Majesty's  Government  that  any  responsibility  for  the  protection 
of  the  canal  should  attach  to  them  in  the  future.  Neutralization 
must  therefore  refer  to  the  system  of  equal  rights. 

It  thus  appears  from  the  preamble  that  the  intention  of  the  Hay- 
Pauncefote  treaty  was  that  the  United  States  was  to  recover  the 
right  to  construct  the  transisthmian  canal  upon  the  terms  that,  when 
constructed,  the  canal  was  to  be  open  to  British  and  United  States 
ships  on  equal  terms. 

The  situation  created  was  in  fact  identical  with  that  resulting 
from  the  boundary  waters  treaty  of  1909  between  Great  Britain 
and  the  United  States,  which  provided  as  follows: 

The  high  contracting  parties  agree  that  the  navigation  of  all  navigable 
boundary  waters  shall  for  ever  continue  free  and  open  for  the  purposes  of 
commerce  to  the  inhabitants  and  to  the  ships,  vessels,  and  boats  of  both 
countries  equally,  subject,  however,  to  any  laws  and  regulations  of  either 
country,  within  its  own  territory,  not  inconsistent  with  such  privilege  of  free 
naviagtion,  and  applying  equally  and  without  discrimination  to  the  inhabitants, 
ships,  vessels,  and  boats  of  both  countries. 

It  is  further  agreed  that  so  long  as  this  treaty  shall  remain  in  force  this 
same  right  of  navigation  shall  extend  to  the  waters  of  Lake  Michigan  and  to 
all  canals  connecting  boundary  waters  and  now  existing,  or  which  may  here- 
after be  constructed  on  either  side  of  the  line.  Father  of  the  high  contracting 
parties  may  adopt  rules  and  regulations  governing  the  use  of  such  canals 
within  its  own  territory,  and  may  charge  tolls  for  the  use  thereof;  but  all 
such  rules  and  regulations  and  all  tolls  charged  shall  apply  alike  to  the  sub- 
jects or  citizens  of  the  high  contracting  parties,  and  they  *  *  *  shall  be 
placed  on  terms  of  equality  in  the  use  thereof. 


88  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL. 

A  similar  provision,  though  more  restricted  in  its  scope,  appears 
in  article  27  of  the  treaty  of  Washington,  1871,  and  Your  Excel- 
lency will  no  doubt  remember  how  strenuously  the  United  .States 
protested,  as  a  violation  of  equal  rights,  against  a  system  which 
Canada  had  introduced  of  a  rebate  of  a  large  portion  of  the  tolls  on 
certain  freight  on  the  Welland  Canal,  provided  that  such  freight 
was  taken  as  far  as  Montreal,  and  how  in  the  face  of  that  protest  the 
system  was  abandoned. 

The  principle  of  equality  is  repeated  in  article  3  of  the  Hay- 
Pauncefote  treaty,  which  provides  that  the  United  States  adopts,  as 
the  basis  of  the  neutralization  of  the  canal,  certain  rules,  substan- 
tially as  embodied  in  the  Suez  Canal  convention.  The  first  of  these 
rules  is  that  the  canal  shall  be  free  and  open  to  the  vessels  of  com- 
merce and  war  of  all  nations  observing  the  rules  on  terms  of  entire 
equality,  so  that  there  shall  be  no  discrimination  against  any  such 
nation. 

The  word  "  neutralization "  is  no  doubt  used  in  article  3  in  the 
same  sense  as  in  the  preamble,  and  implies  subjection  to  the  system 
of  equal  rights.  The  effect  of  the  first  rule  is  therefore  to  establish 
the  provision,  foreshadowed  by  the  preamble  and  consequent  on  the 
maintenance  of  the  principle  of  article  8  of  the  Clayton-Bulwer 
treaty,  that  the  canal  is  to  be  open  to  British  and  United  States 
vessels  on  terms  of  entire  equality.  It  also  embodies  a  promise  on 
the  part  of  the  United  States  that  the  ships  of  all  nations  which 
observe  the  rales  will  be  admitted  to  similar  privileges. 

The  President  in  his  memorandum  treats  the  words  "  all  nations :' 
as  excluding  the  United  States.  He  argues  that,  as  the  United 
States  is  constructing  the  canal  at  is  own  cost  on  territory  ceded 
to  it,  it  has,  unless  it  has  restricted  itself,  an  absolute  right  of  owner- 
ship and  control,  including  the  right  to  allow  its  own  commerce 
the  use  of  the  canal  upon  such  terms  as  it  sees  fit,  and  that  the 
only  question  is  whether  it  has  by  the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty  de- 
prived itself  of  the  exercise  of  the  right  to  pass  its  own  commerce 
free  or  remit  tolls  collected  for  the  use  of  the  canal.  He  argues 
that  article  3  of  the  treaty  is  nothing  more  than  a  declaration  of 
policy  by  the  United  States  that  the  canal  shall  be  neutral  and  all 
nations  treated  alike  and  no  discrimination  made  against  any  one  of 
them  observing  the  rules  adopted  by  the  United  States.  "  In  other 
words,  it  was  a  conditional  favored-nation  treatment,  the  measure 
of  which,  in  the  absence  of  express  stipulations  to  that  effect,  is  not 
what  the  country  gives  to  its  own  nationals,  but  the  treatment  it 
extends  to  other  nations." 

For  the  reasons  they  have  given  above  His  Majesty's  Govern- 
ment believe  this  statement  of  the  case  to  be  wholly  at  variance  with 
the  real  position.  They  consider  that  by  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty 
the  United  States  had  surrendered  the  right  to  construct  the  canal, 
and  that  by  the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty  they  recovered  that  right 
upon  the  footing  that  the  canal  should  be  open  to  British  and  United 
States  vessels  upon  terms  of  equal  treatment. 

The  case  can  not  be  put  more  clearly  than  it  Avas  put  by  Mr.  Hay 
himself,  who,  as  Secretary1  of  State,  negotiated  the  Hay-Pauncefote 
treaty,  in  the  full  account  of  the  negotiations  which  he  sent  to  the 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OP    THE    PANAMA   CANAL.  89 

Senate  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations   (see  S.  Doc.  No.  746,  61st 
Cong.,  3d  sess. )  : 

These  rules  are  adopted  in  the  treaty  with  Great  Britain  as  a  consideration 
for  getting  rid  of  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty. 

If  the  rules  set  out  in  the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty  secure  to  Great 
Britain  no  more  than  most-favored-nation  treatment,  the  value  of 
the  consideration  given  for  superseding  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty 
is  not  apparent  to  His  Majesty's  Government.  Nor  is  it  easy  to  see 
in  what  way  the  principle  of  article  8  of  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty, 
which  provides  for  equal  treatment  of  British  and  United  States 
ships,  has  been  maintained. 

I  notice  that  in  the  course  of  the  debate  in  the  Senate  on  the 
Panama  Canal  bill  the  argument  was  used  by  one  of  the  speakers 
that  the  third,  fourth,  and  fifth  rules  embodied  in  article  3  of  the 
treaty  show  that  the  words  "  all  nations  "  can  not  include  the  United 
States,  because,  if  the  United  States  were  at  war,  it  is  impossible  to 
believe  that  it  could  be  intended  to  be  debarred  by  the  treaty  from 
using  its  own  territory  for  re  victualing  its  war  ships  or  landing 
troops. 

The  same  point  may  strike  others  who  read  nothing  but  the  text 
of  the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty  itself,  and  I  think  it  is  therefore  worth 
while  that  I  should  briefly  show  that  this  argument  is  not  well 
founded. 

The  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty  of  1901  aimed  at  carrying  out  the 
principle  of  the  neutralization  of  the  Panama  Canal  by  subjecting  it 
to  the  same  regime  as  the  Suez  Canal.  Rules  3,  4,  and  5  of  article  3 
of  the  treaty  are  taken  almost  textually  from  articles  4,  5,  and  6  of 
the  Suez  Canal  convention  of  1888.  At  the  date  of  the  signature 
of  the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty  the  territory  on  which  the  Isthmian 
Canal  was  to  be  constructed  did  not  belong  to  the  United  States, 
consequently  there  was  no  need  to  insert  in  the  draft  treaty  provi- 
sions corresponding  to  those  in  articles  10  and  13  of  the  Suez  Canal 
convention,  which  preserve  the  sovereign  rights  of  Turkey  and  of 
Egypt,  and  stipulate  that  articles  4  and  5  shall  not  affect  the  right  of 
Turkey,  as  the  local  sovereign,  and  of  Egypt,  within  the  measure  of 
her  autonomy,  to  take  such  measures  as  may  be  necessary  for  secur- 
ing the  defense  of  Egypt  and  the  maintenance  of  public  order,  and.  in 
the  case  of  Turkey,  the  defense  of  her  possessions  on  the  Red  Sea. 

Now  that  the  United  States  has  become  the  practical  sovereign  of 
the  canal,  His  Majesty's  Government  do  not  question  its  title  to  ex- 
ercise belligerent  rights  for  its  protection. 

For  these  reasons,  His  Majesty's  Government  maintain  that  the 
words  "  all  nations,"  in  rule  1  of  article  3  of  the  Hay-Pauncefote 
treaty  include  the  United  States,  and  that,  in  consequence,  British 
vessels  using  the  canal  are  entitled  to  equal  treatment  with  those  of 
the  United  States,  and  that  the  same  tolls  are  chargeable  on  each. 

This  rule  also  provides  that  the  tolls  should  be  "  just  and  equi- 
table." The  purpose  of  these  words  was  to  limit  the  tolls  to  the 
amount  representing  the  fair  value  of  the  services  rendered,  i.  e.,  to 
the  interest  on  the  capital  expended  and  the  cost  of  the  operation  and 
maintenance  of  the  canal.  Unless  the  whole  volume  of  shipping 
which  passes  through  the  canal,  and  which  all  benefits  equally  by  its 


90  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE    PANAMA   CANAL. 

services,  is  taken  into  account,  there  are  no  means  of  determining 
whether  the  tolls  chargeable  upon  a  vessel  represent  that  vessel's  fair 
proportion  of  the  current  expenditure  properly  chargeable  against 
the  canal — that  is  to  say,  interest  on  the  capital  expended  in  con- 
struction and  the  cost  of  operation  and  maintenance.  If  any  classes 
of  vessels  are  exempted  from  tolls  in  such  a  way  that  no  receipts 
from  such  ships  are  taken  into  account  in  the  income  of  the  canal, 
there  is  no  guarantee  that  the  vessels  upon  which  tolls  are  being 
levied  are  not  being  made  to  bear  more  than  their  fair  share  of  the 
upkeep.  Apart  altogether,  therefore,  from  the  provision  in  rule  1 
about  equality  of  treatment  for  all  nations,  the  stipulation  that  the 
tolls  shall  be  just  and  equitable,  when  rightly  understood,  entitles 
His  Majesty's  Government  to  demand,  on  behalf  of  British  shipping, 
that  all  vessels  passing  through  the  canal,  whatever  their  flag  or  their 
character,  shall-  be  taken  into  account  in  fixing  the  amount  of  the 
tolls. 

The  result  is  that  any  system  by  which  particular  vessels  or 
classes  of  vessels  were  exempted  from  the  payment  of  tolls  would 
not  comply  with  the  stipulations  of  the  treaty  that  the  canal  should 
be  open  on  terms  of  entire  equality,  and  that  the  charges  should  be 
just  and  equitable. 

The  President,  in  his  memorandum,  argues  that  if  there  is  no 
difference,  as  stated  in  Mr.  Mitchell  Innes's  note  of  the  8th  July, 
between  charging  tolls  only  to  refund  them  and  remitting  tolls 
altogether,  the  effect  is  to  prevent  the  United  States  from  aiding  its 
own  commerce  in  the  way  that  all  other  nations  may  freely  do. 
This  is  not  so.  His  Majesty's  Government  have  no  desire  to  place 
upon  the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty  an  interpretation  which  would 
impose  upon  the  United  States  any  restriction  from  which  other 
nations  are  free,  or  reserve  to  such  other  nation  any  privilege  which 
is  denied  to  the  United  States.  Equal  treatment,  as  specified  in  the 
treaty,  is  all  they  claim. 

His  Majesty's  Government  do  not  question  the  right  of  the  United 
States  to  grant  subsidies  to  United  States  shipping  generally  or  to 
any  particular  branches  of  that  shipping,  but  it  does  not  follow 
therefore  that  the  United  States  may  not  be  debarred  by  the  Hay- 
Pauncefote  treaty  from  granting  a  subsidy  to  certain  shipping  in  a 
particular  way,  if  the  effect  of  the  method  chosen  for  granting  such 
subsidy  would  be  to  impose  upon  British  or  other  foreign  shipping 
an  unfair  share  of  the  burden  of  the  upkeep  of  the  canal,  or  to 
create  a  discrimination  in  respect  of  the  conditions  or  charges  of 
traffic,  or  otherwise  to  prejudice  rights  secured  to  British  shipping 
by  this  treaty. 

If  the  United  States  exempt  certain  classes  of  ships  from  the  pay- 
ment of  tolls,  the  result  would  be  a  form  of  subsidy  to  those  vessels 
which  His  Majesty's  Government  consider  the  United  States  are 
debarred  by  the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty  from  making. 

It  remains  to  consider  whether  the  Panama  Canal  act,  in  its  pres- 
ent form,  conflicts  with  the  treaty  rights  to  which  His  Majesty's 
Government  maintain  they  are  entitled. 

Under  section  5  of  the  act  the  President  is  given,  within  certain 
defined  limits,  the  right  to  fix  the  tolls,  but  no  tolls  are  to  be  levied 
upon  ships  engaged  in  the  coastwise  trade  of  the  United  States,  and 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  91 

the  tolls,  when  based  upon  net  registered  tonnage  for  ships  of  com- 
merce, are  not  to  exceed  $1.25  per  net  registered  ton,  nor  be  less, 
other  than  for  vessels  of  the  United  States  and  its  citizens,  than  the 
estimated  proportionate  cost  of  the  actual  maintenance  and  opera- 
tion of  the  canal.  There  is  also  an  exception  for  the  exemptions 
granted  by  article  19  of  the  convention  with  Panama  of  1903. 

The  effect  of  these  provisions  is  that  vessels  engaged  in  the  coast- 
wise trade  will  contribute  nothing  to  the  upkeep  of  the  canal. 
Similarly  vessels  belonging  to  the  Government  of  the  Republic  of 
Panama  will,  in  pursuance  of  the  treaty  of  1903,  contribute  nothing  to 
the  upkeep  of  the  canal.  Again,  in  the  cases  where  tolls  are  levied, 
the  tolls  in  the  case  of  ships  belonging  to  the  United  States  and  its 
citizens  may  be  fixed  at  a  lower  rate  than  in  the  case  of  foreign  ships 
and  may  be  less  than  the  estimated  proportionate  cost  of  the  actual 
maintenance  and  operation  of  the  canal. 

These  provisions  (1)  clearly  conflict  with  the  rule  embodied  in  the 
principle  established  in  article  8  of  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty  of 
equal  treatment  for  British  and  United  States  ships,  and  (2)  would 
enable  tolls  to  be  fixed  which  would  not  be  just  and  equitable,  and 
would  therefore  not  comply  with  rule  1  of  article  3  of  the  Hay- 
Pauncefote  treaty. 

It  has  been  argued  that  as  the  coastwise  trade  of  the  United  States 
is  confined  by  law  to  United  States  vessels,  the  exemption  of  vessels 
engaged  in  it  from  the  payment  of  tolls  can  not  injure  the  interests 
of  foreign  nations.  It  is  clear,  however,  that  the  interests  of  foreign 
nations  will  be  seriously  injured  in  two  material  respects. 

In  the  first  place,  the  exemption  will  result  in  the  cost  of  the  work- 
ing of  the  canal  being  borne  wholly  by  foreign-going  vessels,  and  on 
such  vessels,  therefore,  will  fall  the  whole  burden  of  raising  the  reve- 
nue necessary  to  cover  the  cost  of  working  and  maintaining  the 
canal.  The  possibility,  therefore,  of  fixing  the  toll  on  such  vessels  at 
a  lower  figure  than  $1.25  per  ton,  or  of  reducing  the  rate  below  that 
figure  at  some  future  time,  will  be  considerably  lessened  by  the 
exemption. 

In  the  second  place,  the  exemption  will,  in  the  opinion  of  His 
Majesty's  Government,  be  a  violation  of  the -equal  treatment  secured 
by  the  treaty,  as  it  will  put  the  "  coastwise  trade  "  in  a  preferential 
position  as  regards  other  shipping.  Coastwise  trade  can  not  be  cir- 
cumscribed so  completely  that  benefits  conferred  upon  it  will  not 
affect  vessels  engaged  in  the  foreign  trade.  To  take  an  example, 
if  cargo  intended  for  a  United  States  port  beyond  the  canal,  either 
from  east  or  west,  and  shipped  on  board  a  foreign  ship  could  be 
sent  to  its  destination  more  cheaply,  through  the  operation  of  the 
proposed  exemption,  by  being  landed  at  a  United  States  port  before 
reaching  the  canal,  and  then  sent  on  as  coastwise  trade,  shippers 
would  benefit  by  adopting  this  course  in  preference  to  sending  the 
goods  direct  to  their  destination  through  the  canal  on  board  the  for- 
eign ship. 

Again,  although  certain  privileges  are  granted  to  vessels  engaged 
in  an  exclusively  coastwise  trade,  His  Majesty's  Government  are  given 
to  understand  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  laws  of  the  United  States 
which  prevents  any  United  States  ship  from  combining  foreign  com- 
merce with  coastwise  trade,  and  consequently   from  entering  into 


92  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

direct  competition  with  foreign  vessels  while  remaining  "  prima 
facie  "  entitled  to  the  privilege  of  free  passage  through  the  canal. 
Moreover,  any  restriction  which  may  be  deemed  to  be  now  applicable 
might  at  any  time  be  removed  by  legislation,  or  even,  perhaps,  by  mere 
changes  in  the  regulations. 

In  these  and  in  other  ways  foreign  shipping  would  be  seriously 
handicapped,  and  any  adverse  result  would  fall  more  severely  on 
British  shipping  than  on  that  of  any  other  nationality. 

The  volume  of  British  shipping  which  will  use  the  canal  will  in  all 
probability  be  very  large.  Its  opening  will  shorten  by  many  thousands 
of  miles  the  waterways  between  England  and  other  portions  of  the 
British  Empire,  and  if.  on  the  one  hand,  it  is  important  to  the  United 
States  to  encourage  its  mercantile  marine  and  establish  competition 
between  coastwise  traffic  and  transcontinental  railways,  it  is  equally 
important  to  Great  Britain  to  secure  to  its  shipping  that  just  and 
impartial  treatment  to  which  it  is  entitled  by  treaty,  and  in  return  for 
a  promise  of  which  it  surrendered  the  rights  which  it  held  under  the 
earlier  convention. 

There  are  other  provisions  of  the  Panama  Canal  act  to  which  the 
attention  of  His  Majesty's  Government  has  been  directed.  These  are 
contained  in  section  11.  part  of  which  enacts  that  a  railway  company 
subject  to  the  interstate-commerce  act  of  1887  is  prohibited  from  hav- 
ing any  interest  in  vessels  operated  through  the  canal  with  which  such 
railways  may  compete,  and  another  part  provides  that  a  vessel  per- 
mitted to  engage  in  the  coastwise  or  foreign  trade  of  the  United  States 
is  not  allowed  to  use  the  canal  if  its  owner  is  guilty  of  violating  the 
Sherman  Antitrust  Act. 

His  Majesty's  Government  do  not  read  this  section  of  the  act  as 
applying  to  or  affecting  British  ships,  and  they  therefore  do  not 
feel  justified  in  making  any  observations  upon  it.  They  assume  that 
it  applies  only  to  vessels  flying  the  flag  of  the  United  States,  and 
that  it  is  aimed  at  practices  which  concern  only  the  internal  trade  of 
the  United  States.  If  this  view  is  mistaken  and  the  provisions  are 
intended  to  apply  under  any  circumstances  to  British  ships,  they 
must  reserve  their  right  to  examine  the  matter  further  and  to  raise 
such  contentions  as  may  seem  justified. 

His  Majesty's  Government  feel  no  doubt  as  to  the  correctness  of 
their  interpretation  of  the  treaties  of  1850  and  1901  and  as  to  the 
validity  of  the  rights  they  claim  under  them  for  British  shipping; 
nor  does  there  seem  to  them  to  be  any  room  for  doubt  that  the  pro- 
visions of  the  Panama  Canal  act  as  to  tolls  conflict  with  the  rights 
secured  to  their  shipping  by  the  treaty.  But  they  recognize  that 
many  persons  of  note  in  the  United  States,  whose  opinions  are  en- 
titled to  great  weight,  hold  that  the  provisions  of  the  act  do  not 
infringe  the  conventional  obligations  by  which  the  United  States  is 
bound,  and  under  these  circumstances  they  desire  to  state  their  per- 
fect readiness  to  submit  the  question  to  arbitration  if  the  Government 
of  the  United  States  would  prefer  to  take  this  course.  A  reference 
to  arbitration  would  be  rendered  unnecessary  if  the  Government  of 
the  United  States  should  be  prepared  to  take  such  steps  as  would 
remove  the  objections  to  the  act  which  His  Majesty's  Government 
have  stated. 

Knowing,  as  I  do.  full  well  the  interest  which  this  great  under- 
taking has  aroused  in  the  New  World,  and  the  emotion  with  which 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CAXAL.  93 

its  opening  is  looked  forward  to  by  United  States  ritizens,  I  wish  to 
add  before  closing  this  dispatch  that  it  is  only  with  great  reluctance 
that  His  Majesty's  Government  have  felt  bound  to  raise  objection 
on  the  ground  of  treaty  rights  to  the  provisions  of  the  act.  Ani- 
mated by  an  earnest  desire  to  avoid  points  which  might  in  any  way 
prove  embarrassing  to  the  United  States,  His  Majesty's  Government 
have  confined  their  objections  within  the  narrowest  possible  limits 
and  have  recognized  in  the  fullest  manner  the  right  of  the  United 
States  to  control  the  canal.  They  feel  convinced  that  they  may  look 
with  confidence  to  the  Government  of  the  United  States  to  insure 
that  in  promoting  the  interests  of  United  States  shipping  nothing 
will  be  done  to  impair  the  safeguards  guaranteed  to  British  shipping 
by  treaty. 

Your  excellency  will  read  this  dispatch  to  the  Secretary  of  State 
and  will  leave  with  him  a  copy. 
T  am.  &c. 

E.  Grey. 


The  Secretary  of  State  to  Charge  d? Affaires  Laughlin. 

No.  1833.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington.  January  17,  1913. 
Irwin  B.  Lat  ghlin.  Esq., 

American  Charge  dAff  aires.  London.  England. 

Sir  :  I  inclose  a  copy  of  an  instruction  from  Sir  Edward  Grey 
to  His  Britannic  Majesty's  ambassador  at  Washington,  dated  No- 
vember 14.  1912.1  a  copy  of  which  was  handed  to  me  by  the  ambas- 
sador on  the  9th  ultimo,  in  which  certain  provisions  in  the  Panama 
Canal  act  of  August  24  last  arc  discussed  in  their  relation  to  the 
Hay-Pauncefote  treaty  of  November  18,  1901 ;  and  I  also  inclose  a 
copy  of  the  note  addressed  to  me  on  July  8.  1912.  by  Mr.  A.  Mitchell 
Innes,  His  Britannic  Majesty's  charge  d'affaires,  stating  the  objec- 
tions which  his  Government  entertained  to  the  legislation  relating  to 
the  Panama  Canal,  which  was  then  under  discussion  in  Congress.  A 
copy  of  the  President's  proclamation  of  November  13.  1912,  fixing 
th'e  canal  tolls,  is  also  inclosed. 

Sir  Edward  Grey's  communication,  after  setting  forth  the  several 
grounds  upon  which  the  British  Government  believe  the  provisions 
of  the  act  are  inconsistent  with  the  stipulations  of  the  Hay-Paunce- 
fote treaty,  states  the  readiness  of  his  Government  "  to  submit  the 
question  to  arbitration  if  the  Government  of  the  United  States  would 
prefer  to  take  this  course  "  rather  than  "  to  take  such  steps  as  would 
remove  the  objections  to  the  act  which  His  Majesty's  Government 
have  stated."  It  therefore  becomes  necessary  for  this  Government 
to  examine  these  objections  in  order  to  ascertain  exactly  in  what 
respects  this  act  is  regarded  by  the  British  Government  as  inconsist- 
ent with  the  provisions  of  that  treaty,  and  also  to  explain  the  views 
of  this  Government  upon  the  questions  thus  presented,  and  to  consider 
the  advisability  at  this  time  of  submitting  any  of  these  questions  to 
arbitration. 

It  may  be  stated  at  the  outset  that  this  Government  does  not  agree 
with  the  interpretation  placed  by  Sir  Edward  Grey  upon  the  Hay- 

1  Printed  ante. 


94  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

Pauncefote  treaty,  or  upon  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty,  but  for  rea- 
sons which  will  appear  hereinbelow  it  is  not  deemed  necessary  at 
present  to  amplify  or  reiterate  the  views  of  this  Government  upon  the 
meaning  of  those  treaties. 

In  Sir  Edward  Grey's  communication,  after  explaining  in  detail 
the  views  taken  by  his  Government  as  to  the  proper  interpretation 
of  the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty,  "  so  as  to  indicate  the  limitations 
which"  His  Majesty's  Government  "consider  it  imposes  upon  the 
freedom  of  action  of  the  United  States,"  he  proceeds  to  indicate  the 
points  in  which  the  canal  act  infringes  what  he  holds  to  be  Great 
Britain's  treaty  rights. 

It  is  obvious  from  the  whole  tenor  of  Sir  Edward  Grey's  communi- 
cation that  in  writing  it  he  could  not  have  taken  cognizance  of  the 
President's  proclamation  fixing  the  canal  tolls.  Indeed,  a  compari- 
son of  the  dates  of  the  proclamation  and  the  note,  which  are  dated, 
respectively,  November  13  and  November  14  last,  shows  that  the 
proclamation  could  hardly  have  been  received  in  London  in  time  for 
consideration  in  the  note.  Throughout  his  discussion  of  the  subject, 
Sir  Edward  Grey  deals  chiefly  with  the  possibilities  of  what  the 
President  might  do  under  the  act,  which  in  itself  does  not  prescribe 
the  tolls,  but  merely  authorizes  the  President  to  do  so;  and  nowhere 
does  the  note  indicate  that  Sir  Edward  Grey  was  aware  of  what  the 
President  actually  had  done  in  issuing  this  proclamation.  The 
proclamation,  therefore,  has  entirely  changed  the  situation  which  is 
discussed  by  Sir  Edward  Grey,  and  the  diplomatic  discussion,  which 
his  note  now  makes  inevitable,  must  rest  upon  the  bases  as  they  exist 
at  present,  and  not  upon  the  hypothesis  formed  by  the  British 
Government  at  the  time  this  note  was  written. 

Sir  Edward  Grey  presents  the  question  of  conflict  between  the  act 
and  the  treaty  in  the  following  language : 

It  remains  to  consider  whether  the  Panama  Canal  act.  in  its  present  form, 
conflicts  with  the  treaty  rights  to  which  His  Majesty's  Government  maintain 
they  are  entitled. 

Under  section  5  of  the  act  the  President  is  given,  within  certain  defined 
limits,  the  right  to  fix  the  tolls,  but  no  tolls  are  to  be  levied  upon  ships  engaged 
in  the  coastwise  trade  of  the  United  States,  and  the  tolls,  when  based  upon 
net  registered  tonnage  for  ships  of  commerce,  are  not  to  exceed  1  dollar  25  c. 
per  net  registered  ton,  nor  be  less,  other  tJtntt  for  vessels  of  the  I  tiitcrf  states 
and  its  citizens,  than  the  estimated  proportionate  cost  of  the  actual  mainte- 
nance and  operation  of  the  canal.  There  is  also  an  exception  for  the  exemp- 
tions granted  by  article  19  of  the  convention  with  Panama  of  1003. 

The  effect  of  these  provisions  is  that  vessels  engaged  in  the  coastwise  trade 
will  contribute  nothing  to  the  upkeep  of  the  canal.  Similarly  vessels  belonging 
to  the  Government  of  the  Republic  of  Panama  will,  in  pursuance  of  the  treaty 
of  1903,  contribute  nothing  to  the  upkeep  of  the  canal.  Again,  in  the  cases 
where  tolls  are  levied,  the  tolls  in  the  case  of  ships  belonging  to  the  United 
States  and  its  citizens  may  be  fixed  at  a  lower  rate  than  in  the  case  of  foreign 
ships,  and  may  be  less  than  the  estimated  proportionate  cost  of  the  actual 
maintenance  and  operation  of  the  canal. 

These  provisions  (1)  clearly  conflict  with  the  rule  embodied  in  the  principle 
established  in  article  S  of  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty  of  equal  treatment  for 
British  and  United  States  ships  and  (2)  would  enable  tolls  to  be  fixed  which 
would  not  be  just  and  equitable  and  would  therefore  not  comply  with  rule  1  of 
article  3  of  the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty. 

From  this  it  appears  that  three  objections  are  made  to  the  provi- 
sions of  the  act ;  first,  that  no  tolls  are  to  be  levied  upon  ships  engaged 
in  the  coastwise  trade  of  the  United  States;  second,  that  a  discretion 
appears  to  be  given  to  the  President  to  discriminate  in  fixing  tolls 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  95 

in  favor  of  ships  belonging  to  the  United  States  and  its  citizens  as 
against  foreign  ships;  and,  third,  that  an  exemption  has  been  given 
to  the  vessels  of  the  Republic  of  Panama  under  article  19  of  the  con- 
vention with  Panama  of  1903. 

Considered  in  the  reverse  order  of  their  statement,  the  third  objec- 
tion, coming  at  this  time,  is  a  great  and  complete  surprise  to  this 
Government.  The  exemption  under  that  article  applies  only  to  the 
government  vessels  of  Panama  and  was  part  of  the  agreement  with 
Panama  under  which  the  canal  was  built.  The  convention  contain- 
ing the  exemption  was  ratified  in  1904,  and  since  then  to  the  present 
time  no  claim  has  been  made  by  Great  Britain  that  it  conflicted  with 
British  rights.  The  United  States  has  always  asserted  the  principle 
that  the  status  of  the  countries  immediately  concerned  by  reason  of 
their  political  relation  to  the  territory  in  which  the  canal  was  to  be 
constructed  was  different  from  that  of  all  other  countries.  The  Hay- 
Herran  treaty  with  Colombia  of  1903  also  provided  that  the  war 
vessels  of  that  country  were  to  be  given  free  passage.  It  has  always 
been  supposed  by  this  Government  that  Great  Britain  recognized  the 
propriety  of  the  exemptions  made  in  both  of  those  treaties.  It  is 
not  believed,  therefore,  that  the  British  Government  intend  to  be 
understood  as  proposing  arbitration  upon  the  question  of  whether 
or  not  this  provision  of  the  act,  which  in  accordance  with  our  treaty 
with  Panama  exempts  from  tolls  the  government  vessels  of  Panama, 
is  in  conflict  with  the  provisions  of  the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty. 

Considering  the  second  objection  based  upon  the  discretion  thought 
to  be  conferred  upon  the  President  to  discriminate  in  favor  of  ships 
belonging  to  the  United  States  and  its  citizens,  it  is  sufficient,  in  view 
of  the  fact  that  the  President's  proclamation  fixing  the  tolls  was 
silent  on  the  subject,  to  quote  the  language  used  by  the  President  in 
the  memorandum  attached  to  the  act  at  the  time  of  signature,  in 
which  he  says : 

It  is  not,  therefore,  necessary  to  discuss  the  policy  of  such  discrimination 
until  the  question  may  arise  in  the  exercise  of  the  President's  discretion. 

On  this  point  no  question  has  as  yet  arisen  which,  in  the  words 
of  the  existing  arbitration  treaty  between  the  United  States  and 
Great  Britain,  "  it  may  not  have  been  possible  to  settle  by  diplo- 
macy," and  until  then  any  suggestion  of  arbitration  may  well  be 
regarded  as  premature. 

It  is  not  believed,  however,  that  in  the  objection  now  under  con- 
sideration Great  Britain  intends  to  question  the  right  of  the  United 
States  to  exempt  from  the  payment  of  tolls  its  vessels  of  war  and 
other  vessels  engaged  in  the  service  of  this  Government.  Great 
Britain  does  not  challenge  the  right  of  the  United  States  to  protect 
the  canal.  United  States  vessels  of  war  and  those  employed  in 
Government  service  are  a  part  of  our  protective  system.  By  the 
Hay-Pauncefote  treaty  we  assume  the  sole  responsibility  for  its 
neutralization.  It  is  inconceivable  that  this  Government  should  be 
required  to  pay  canal  tolls  for  the  vessels  used  for  protecting  the 
canal,  which  we  alone  must  protect.  The  movement  of  United 
States  vessels  in  executing  governmental  policies  of  protection  are 
not  susceptible  of  explanation  or  differentiation.  The  United  States 
could  not  be  called  upon  to  explain  what  relation  the  movement  of 
a   particular  vessel  through  the  canal  has  to  its  protection.     The 


96  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA    CANAL. 

British  objection,  therefore,  is  understood  as  having  no  relation  to 
the  use  of  the  canal. by  vessels  in  the  service  of  the  United  States 
Government. 

Regarding  the  first  objection,  the  question  presented  by  Sir  Ed- 
ward Grey  arises  solely  upon  the  exemption  in  the  canal  act  of 
vessels  engaged  in  our  coastwise  trade. 

On  this  point  Sir  Edward  Grey  says  that  "  His  Majesty's  Gov- 
ernment do  not  question  the  right  of  the  United  States  to  grant 
subsidies  to  United  States  shipping  generally,  or  to  any  particular 
branches  of  that  shipping,"  and  it  is  admitted  in  his  note  that  the 
exemption  of  certain  classes  of  ships  would  be  "  a  form  of  subsidy  " 
to  those  vessels;  but  it  appears  from  the  note  that  His  Majesty's 
Government  would  regard  that  form  of  subsidy  as  objectionable 
under  the  treaty  if  the  effect  of  such  subsidy  would  be  "to  impose 
upon  British  or  other  foreign  shipping  an  unfair  share  of  the  burden 
of  the  upkeep  of  the  canal,  or  to  create  a  discrimination  in  respect 
of  the  conditions  or  charges  of  traffic,  or  otherwise  to  prejudice 
rights  secured  to  British  shipping  by  this  treaty." 

It  is  not  contended  by  Great  Britain  that  equality  of  treatment  has 
any  reference  to  British  participation  in  the  coastwise  trade  of  the 
United  States,  which,  in  accordance  with  general  usage,  is  reserved 
to  American  ships.  The  objection  is  only  to  such  exemption  of 
that  trade  from  toll  payments  as  may  adversely  affect  British  rights 
to  equal  treatment  in  the  payment  of  tolls,  or  to  just  and  equitable 
tolls.  It  will  be  helpful  here  to  recall  that  we  are  now  onl}T  engaged 
in  considering  (quoting  from  Sir  Edward  Grey's  note)  "  whether  the 
Panama  Canal  act  in  its  present  form  conflicts  with  the  treaty  rights 
to  which  His  Majesty's  Government  maintain  they  are  entitled,"  con- 
cerning which  he  concludes : 

These  provisions  (1)  clearly  conflict  with  the  rule  embodied  in  the  principle 

establish*^!  in  article  8  of  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty  of  equal  treatment  for 
British  and  United  States  ships,  and  (2)  would  amble  tolls  to  be  fixed  which 
would  not  be  just  and  equitable,  and  would  therefore  not  comply  with  rule  1  of 
article  3  of  the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty. 

On  the  first  of  these  points  the  objection  of  the  British  Govern- 
ment to  the  exemption  of  vessels  engaged  in  the  coastwise  trade  of 
the  United  States  is  stated  as  follows : 

*  *  *  the  exemption  will,  in  the  opinion  of  His  Majesty's  Government,  be 
a  violation  of  the  equal  treatment  secured  by  the  treaty,  as  it  will  put  the 
"coastwise  trade"  in  a  preferential  position  as  regards  other  shipping.  Coast- 
wise trade  can  not  be  circumscribed  so  completely  that  benefits  conferred  upon 
it  will  not  affect  vessels  engaged  in  the  foreign  trade.  To  take  an  example,  if 
cargo  intended  for  a  United  Stales  port  beyond  the  canal,  either  from  east  or 
west,  and  shipped  on  board  a  foreign  ship  could  be  sent  to  its  destination  more 
cheaply  through  the  operation  of  proi>osed  exemption  by  being  landed  at  a 
United*  States  port  before  reaching  the  canal  and  then  sent  on  as  coastwise 
trade,  shippers  would  benefit  by  adopting  this  course  in  preference  to  sending 
the  goods  direct  to  their  destination  through  the  canal  on  board  the  foreign 
ship. 

This  objection  must  be  read  in  connection  with  the  views  ex- 
pressed by  the  British  Government  while  this  act  was  pending  in 
Congress,  which  were  stated  in  the  note  of  July  8,  1912,  on  the 
subject  from  Mr.  Innes,  as  follows: 

As  to  the  proposal  that  exemption  shall  he  given  to  vessels  engaged  in  the 
coastwise   trade,   a    more   difficull    question   arises.      If   the   trade  should   be  so 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL.  97 

regulated  as  to  make  it  certain  that  only  bona  fide  coastwise  traffic  which  is 
reserved  for  United  States  vessels  would  be  benefited  by  this  exemption,  it 
may  be  that  no  objection  could  be  taken. 

This  statement  may  fairly  be  taken  as  an  admission  that  this 
Government  may  exempt  its  vessels  engaged  in  the  coastwise  trade 
from  the  payment  of  tolls,  provided  such  exemption  be  restricted 
to  bona  fide  coastwise  traffic.  As  to  this  it  is  sufficient  to  say  that 
obviously  the  United  States  is  not  to  be  denied  the  power  to  remit 
tolls  to  its  own  coastwise  trade  because  of  a  suspicion  or  possibility 
that  the  regulations  yet  to  be  framed  may  not  restrict  this  exemp- 
tion to  bona   fide  coastwise   traffic. 

The  answer  to  this  objection,  therefore,  apart  from  any  question 
of  treaty  interpretation,  is  that  it  rests  on  conjecture  as  to  what  may 
happen  rather  than  upon  proved  facts,  and  does  not  present  a  ques- 
tion requiring  submission  to  arbitration,  as  it  has  not  as  yet  passed 
beyond  the  stage  where  it  can  be  profitably  dealt  with  by  diplomatic 
discussion.  It  will  be  remembered  that  only  questions  which  it  may 
not  be  possible  to  settle  by  diplomacy  are  required  by  our  arbitra- 
tion treaty  to  be  referred  to  arbitration. 

On  this  same  point  Sir  Edward  Grey  urges  another  objection  to 
the  exemption  of  coastwise  vessels,  as  follows: 

Again,  although  certain  privileges  are  granted  to  vessels  engaged  in  an  ex- 
clusively coastwise  trade,  His  Majesty's  Government  are  given  to  understand 
that  there  is  nothing  in  the  laws  of  the  United  States  which  prevents  any 
United  States  ship  from  combining  foreign  commerce  with  coastwise  trade,  and 
consequently  from  entering  into  direct  competition  with  foreign  vessels  while 
remaining  "  prima  facie "  entitled  to  the  privilege  of  free  passage  through 
the  canal.  Moreover  any  restriction  which  may  be  deemed  to  be  now  applicable 
might  at  any  time  be  removed  by  legislation  or  even  perhaps  by  mere  changes 
in  the  regulations. 

This  objection  also  raises  a  question  which,  apart  from  treaty  in- 
terpretation, depends  upon  future  conditions  and  facts  not  yet  ascer- 
tained, and  for  the  same  reasons  as  are  above  stated  its  submission 
to  arbitration  at  this  time  would  be  premature. 

The  second  point  of  Sir  Edward  Grey's  objection  to  the  exemp- 
tion of  vessels  engaged  in  coastwise  trade  remains  to  be  considered. 
On  this  point  he  says  that  the  provisions  of  the  act  "  would  enable 
tolls  to  oe  fixed  which  would  not  be  just  and  equitable,  and  would 
therefore  not  comply  with  rule  1  of  article  3  of  the  Hay-Pauncefote 
treaty." 

It  will  be  observed  that  this  statement  evidently  was  framed 
without  knowledge  of  the  fact  that  the  President's  proclamation 
fixing  the  tolls  had  issued.  It  is  not  claimed  in  the  note  that  the 
tolls  actually  fixed  are  not  "  just  and  equitable "  or  even  that  all 
vessels  passing  through  the  canal  were  not  taken  into  account  in 
fixing  the  amount  of  the  tolls,  but  only  that  either  or  both  contin- 
gencies are  possible. 

If  the  British  contention  is  correct  that  the  true  construction  of 
the  treaty  requires  all  traffic  to  be  reckoned  in  fixing  just  and  equi- 
table tolls,  it  requires  at  least  an  allegation  that  the  tolls  as  fixed  are 
not  just  and  equitable  and  that  all  traffic  has  not  been  reckoned  in 
fixing  them  before  the  United  States  can  be  called  upon  to  prove  that 
this  course  was  not  followed,  even  assuming  that  the  burden  of  proof 
would  rest  with  the  United  States  in  any  event,  which  is  open  to 

42112— S.  Doc.  474,  63-2 7 


98  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL. 

question.  This  Government  welcome>  the  opportunity,  however, 
of  informing  the  British  Government  that  the  tolls  fixed  in  the 
President's  proclamation  are  based  upon  the  computations  set  forth 
in  the  report  of  Prof.  Emory  R.  Johnson,  a  copy  of  which  is  for- 
warded herewith  for  delivery  to  Sir  Edward  Grey,  and  that  the  tolls 
which  would  be  paid  by  American  coastwise  vessels,  but  for  the  ex- 
emption contained  in  the  act,  were  computed  in  determining  the  rate 
fixed  by  the  President. 

By  reference  to  page  208  of  Prof.  Johnson's  report,  it  will  be  seen 
that  the  estimated  net  tonnage  of  shipping  using  the  canal  in  1915 
is  as  follows : 

Tons. 

Coast  to  coast  American  shipping 1,000,000 

American  shipping  carrying  foreign  commerce  of  the  United  States__  720,  000 
Foreign  shipping  carrying  commerce  of  the  United  States  and  foreign 

countries 8,  ISO.  000 

It  was  on  this  estimate  that  tolls  fixed  in  the  President's  procla- 
mation were  based. 

Sir  Edward  Grey  says,  "  This  rule  [1  of  article  3  of  the  Hay- 
Pauncefote  treaty]  also  provides  that  the  tolls  should  be  'just  and 
equitable.' ''  The  purpose  of  these  words,  he  adds,  "  was  to  limit 
the  tolls  to  the  amount  representing  the  fair  value  of  the  services 
rendered,  i.  e.,  to  the  interest  on  the  capital  expended  and  the  cost 
of  the  operation  and  maintenance  of  the  canal."  If,  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  the  tolls  now  fixed  (of  which  he  seems  unaware)  do  not  exceed 
this  requirement,  and  as  heretofore  pointed  out  there  is  no  claim 
that  they  do,  it  is  not  apparent  under  Sir  Edward  Grey's  contention 
how  Great  Britain  could  be  receiving  unjust  and  inequitable  treat- 
ment if  the  United  States  favors  its  coastwise  vessels  by  not  collect- 
ing their  share  of  the  tolls  necessary  to  meet  the  requirement.  There 
is  a  very  clear  distinction  between  an  omission  to  "  take  into  account  " 
the  coastwise  tolls  in  order  to  determine  a  just  and  equitable  rate, 
which  is  as  far  as  this  objection  goes,  and  the  remission  of  such  tolls, 
or  their  collection  coupled  with  their  repayment  in  the  form  of  a 
subsidy. 

The  exemption  of  the  coastwise  trade  from  tolls,  or  the  refunding 
of  tolls  collected  from  the  coastwise  trade,  is  merely  a  subsidy 
granted  by  the  United  States  to  that  trade,  and  the  loss  resulting 
from  not  collecting,  or  from  refunding  those  tolls,  will  fall  solely 
upon  the  United  States.  In  the  same  way  the  loss  will  fall  on  the 
United  States  if  the  tolls  fixed  by  the  President's  proclamation  on 
all  vessels  represent  less  than  the  fair  value  of  the  service  rendered, 
which  must  necessarily  be  the  case  for  many  years;  and  the  United 
States  will,  therefore,  be  in  the  position  of  subsidizing  or  aiding  not 
merely  its  own  coastwise  vessels,  but  foreign  vessels  as  well. 

Apart  from  the  particular  objections  above  considered,  it  is  not 
understood  that  Sir  Edward  Grey  questions  the  right  of  the  United 
States  to  subsidize  either  its  coastwise  or  its  foreign  shipping,  inas- 
much as  he  says  that  His  Majesty's  Government  do  not  find  either 
in  the  letter  or  in  the  spirit  of  the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty  any  sur- 
render by  either  of  the  contracting  powers  of  the  right  to  encourage 
its  shipping  or  its  commerce  by  such  subsidies  as  it  may  deem 
expedient." 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL.  99 

To  summarize  the  whole  matter:  The  British  objections  are.  in  the 
first  place,  about  the  canal  act  only;  but  the  canal  act  does  not  fix 
the  tolls.  They  ignore  the  President's  proclamation  fixing  the  tolls 
which  puts  at  rest  practically  all  of  the  supposititious  injustice  and 
inequality  which  Sir  Edward  Grey  thinks  might  follow  the  adminis- 
tration of  the  act,  and  concerning  which  he  expresses  so  many  and 
grave  fears.  Moreover,  the  gravamen  of  the  complaint  is  not  that 
the  canal  act  will  actually  injure  in  its  operation  British  shipping  or 
destroy  rights  claimed  for  such  shipping  under  the  Hay-Pauncefote 
treaty,  but  that  such  injury  or  destruction  may  possibly  be  the  effect 
thereof;  and  further,  and  more  particularly,  Sir  Edward  Grey  com- 
plains that  the  action  of  Congress  in  enacting  the  legislation  under 
discussion  foreshadows  that  Congress  or  the  President  may  hereafter 
take  some  action  which  might  be  injurious  to  British  shipping  and 
destructive  of  its  rights  under  the  treaty.  Concerning  this  possible 
future  injury,  it  is  only  necessary  to  say  that  in  the  absence  of  an 
allegation  of  actual  or  certainly  impending  injury  there  appears 
nothing  upon  which  to  base  a  sound  complaint.  Concerning  the 
infringement  of  rights  claimed  by  Great  Britain,  it  may  be  remarked 
that  it  would,  of  course,  be  idle  to  contend  that  Congress  has  not  the 
power  or  that  the  President,  properly  authorized  by  Congress,  may 
not  have  the  power  to  violate  the  terms  of  the  Hay-Pauncefote 
treaty  in  its  aspect  as  a  rule  of  municipal  law.  Obviously,  however, 
the  fact  that  Congress  has  the  power  to  do  something  contrary  to  the 
welfare  of  British  shipping  or  that  Congress  has  put  or  may  put  into 
the  hands  of  the  President  the  power  to  do  something  which  may  be 
contrary  to  the  interests  possessed  by  British  shipping  affords  no 
just  ground  for  complaint.  It  is  the  improper  exercise  of  a  power 
and  not  its  possession  which  alone  can  give  rise  to  an  international 
cause  of  action;  or.  to  put  it  in  terms  of  municipal  law.  it  is  not  the 
possession  of  the  power  to  trespass  upon  another's  property  which 
gives  a  right  of  action  in  trespass,  but  only  the  actual  exercise  of  that 
power  in  committing  the  act  of  trespass  itself. 

When  and  if  complaint  is  made  by  Great  Britain  that  the  effect 
of  the  act  and  the  proclamation  together  will  be  to  subject  British 
vessels,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  to  inequality  of  treatment  or  to  unjust 
and  inequitable  tolls  in  conflict  with  the  terms  of  the  Hay-Pauncefote 
treaty,  the  question  will  then  be  raised  as  to  whether  the  United 
States  is  bound  by  that  treaty  both  to  take  into  account  and  to 
collect  tolls  from  American  vessels,  and  also  whether  under  the  obli- 
gations of  that  treaty  British  vessels  are  entitled  to  equality  of  treat- 
ment in  all  respects  with  the  vessels  of  the  United  States.  Until 
these  objections  rest  upon  something  more  substantial  than  mere 
possibility  it  is  not  believed  that  they  should  be  submitted  to  arbitra- 
tion. The  existence  of  an  arbitration  treaty  does  not  create  a  right 
of  action;  it  merely  provides  a  means  of  settlement  to  be  resorted 
to  only  when  other  resources  of  diplomacy  have  failed.  It  is  not 
now  deemed  necessary,  therefore,  to  enter  upon  a  discussion  of  the 
views  entertained  by  Congress  and  by  the  President  as  to  the  mean- 
ing of  the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty  in  relation  to  questions  of  fact 
which  have  not  yet  arisen  but  may  possibly  arise  in  the  future  in 
connection  with  the  administration  of  the  act  under  consideration. 

It  is  recognized  by  this  Government  that  the  situation  developed 
by  the  present  discussion   may   require   an   examination   by   Great 


100  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL. 

Britain  into  the  facts  above  set  forth  as  to  the  basis  upon  which  the 
tolls  fixed  by  the  President's  proclamation  have  been  computed, 
and  also  into  the  regulations  and  restrictions  circumscribing  the 
coastwise  trade  of  the  United  States,  as  well  as  into  other  facts 
bearing  upon  the  situation,  with  the  view  of  determining  whether  or 
not,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  under  present  conditions  there  is  any  ground 
for  claiming  that  the  act  and  proclamation  actually  subject  British 
vessels  to  inequality  of  treatment  or  to  unjust  and  inequitable  tolls. 

If  it  should  be  found  as  a  result  of  such  an  examination  on  the 
part  of  Great  Britain  that  a  difference  of  opinion  exists  between  the 
two  Governments  on  any  of  the  important  questions  of  fact  involved 
in  this  discussion,  then  a  situation  will  have  arisen  which,  in  the 
opinion  of  this  Government,  could  with  advantage  be  dealt  with  by 
referring  the  controversy  to  a  commission  of  inquiry  for  examina- 
tion and  report  in  the  manner  provided  for  in  the  unratified  arbi- 
tration treaty  of  August  3.  1911.  between  the  United  States  and 
Great  Britain. 

The  necessity  for  inquiring  into  questions  of  fact  in  their  relation 
to  controversies  under  diplomatic  discussion  was  contemplated  by 
both  parties  in  negotiating  that  treaty,  which  provides  for  the  insti- 
tution, as  occasion  arises,  of  a  joint  high  commission  of  inquiry,  to 
which,  upon  the  request  of  either  party,  might  be  referred  for  impar- 
tial and  conscientious  investigation  any  controversy  between  them, 
the  commission  being  authorized  upon  such  reference  "  to  examine 
into  and  report  upon  the  particular  questions  or  matters  referred  to 
it,  for  the  purpose  of  facilitating  the  solution  of  disputes  by  elucidat- 
ing the  facts,  and  to  define  the  issues  presented  by  such  questions,  and 
also  to  include  in  its  report  such  recommendations  and  conclusions 
as  may  be  appropriate." 

This  proposal  might  be  carried  out.  should  occasion  arise  for  adopt- 
ing it,  either  under  a  special  agreement  or  under  the  unratified  arbi- 
tration treaty  above  mentioned,  if  Great  Britain  is  prepared  to  join 
in  ratifying  that  treaty,  which  the  United  States  is  prepared  to  do. 

You  will  take  an  early  opportunity  to  read  this  dispatch  to  Sir 
Edward  Grey;  and  if  he  should  so  desire,  you  will  leave  a  copy  of  it 
with  him. 

I  am,  etc., 

T.  C.  Knox. 

[Inclosure.] 

[Panama  Canal  toll  rates.] 

By  the  President  of  the  United  States  or  America. 

A  Proclamation. 

I.  William  Howard  Taft,  President  of  the  United  States  of 
America,  by  virtue  of  the  power  and  authority  vested  in  me  by  the 
Act  of  Congress,  approved  August  twenty-fourth,  nineteen  hundred 
and  twelve,  to  provide  for  the  opening,  maintenance,  protection  and 
operation  of  the  Panama  Canal  and  the  sanitation  and  government 
of  the  Canal  Zone,  do  hereby  prescribe  and  proclaim  the  following 
rates  of  toll  to  be  paid  by  vessels  using  the  Panama  Canal : 

1.  On  merchant  vessels  carrying  passengers  <>r  cargo  one  dollar  and  twenty 
cents  ($1.20)  per  net  vessel  ton — each  one  hundred  iH*M  cubic  feet— of  actual 
earning  capacity. 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL.  101 

2.  On  vessels  in  ballast  without  passengers  or  cargo  forty  (40)  per  cent  less 
than  the  rate  of  tolls  for  vessels  with  passengers  <>r  cargo. 

3.  Upon  naval  vessels,  other  than  transports,  colliers,  hospital  ships  and 
supply  ships,  fifty   (50)  cents  per  displacement  ton. 

4.  Upon  army  and  navy  transports,  colliers,  hospital  ships  and  supply  ships 
one  dollar  and  twenty  cents  ($1.20)  per  net  ton.  the  vessels  to  be  measured  by 
the  same  rules  as  are  employed  in  determining  the  net  tonnage  of  merchant 
vessels. 

The  Secretary  of  War  will  prepare  and  prescribe  such  rules  for 
the  measurement  of  vessels  and  such  regulations  as  may  be  necessary 
and  proper  to  carry  this  proclamation  into  full  force  and  effect. 

In  witness  whereof.  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  caused  the 
seal  of  the  United  States  to  be  affixed. 

Done  at  the  City  of  Washington  this  thirteenth  day  of  November 
in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  nine  hundred  and  twelve  and 
of  the  independence  of  the  United  States  the  one  hundred  an  thirty- 
seventh. 

[seal.]  Wm.  H.  Taft. 

Bv  the  President : 

P.  C.  Knox, 

Secretary  of  State. 


The  British  Ambassador  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

British  Embassy, 
Washington,  February  27,  1913. 

Sir:  His  Majesty's  Government  are  unable  before  the  administra- 
tion leaves  office  to  reply  fully  to  the  arguments  contained  in  your 
dispatch  of  the  17th  ultimo  to  the  United  States  charge  d'affaires 
at  London  regarding  the  difference  of  opinion  that  has  arisen  be- 
tween our  two  Governments  as  to  the  interpretation  of  the  Hay- 
Pauncefote  treaty,  but  they  desire  me  in  the  meantime  to  offer  the 
following  observations  Avith  regard  to  the  argument  that  no  case  has 
yet  arisen  calling  for  any  submission  to  arbitration  of  the  points  in 
difference  between  His  Majesty's  Government  and  that  of  the  United 
States  on  the  interpretation  of  the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty,  because 
no  actual  injury  has  as  yet  resulted  to  any  British  interest  and  all 
that  has  been  done  so  far  is  to  pass  an  act  of  Congress  under  which 
action  held  by  His  Majesty's  Government  to  be  prejudicial  to  British 
interests  might  be  taken. 

From  this  view  His  Majesty's  Government  feel  bound  to  express 
their  dissent.  They  conceive  that  international  law  or  usage  does' 
not  support  the  doctrine  that  the  passing  of  a  statute  in  contraven- 
tion of  a  treaty  right  affords  no  ground  of  complaint  for  the  infrac- 
tion of  that  right,  and  that  the  nation  which  holds  that  its  treaty 
rights  have  been  so  infringed  or  brought  into  question  by  a  denial 
that  they  exist,  must,  before  protesting  and  seeking  a  means  of  deter- 
mining the  point  at  issue,  wait  until  some  further  action  violating 
those  rights  in  a  concrete  instance  has  been  taken,  which  in  the 
present  instance  would,  according  to  your  argument,  seem  to  mean, 
until  tolls  have  been  actually  levied  upon  British  vessels  from  which 
vessels  owned  by  citizens  of  the  United  States  have  been  exempted. 

The  terms  of  the  proclamation  issued  by  the  President  fixing  the 
canal  tolls,  and  the  particular  method  which  your  note  sets  forth  as 
having  been  adopted  by  him.  in  his  discretion,  on  a  given  occasion 


102  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE    PANAMA   CANAL. 

for  determining-  on  what  basis  they  should  be  fixed  do  not  appear  to 
His  Majesty's  Government  to  affect  the  general  issue  as  to  the  mean- 
ing of  the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty  which  they  have  raised.  In  their 
view  the  act  of  Congress,  when  it  declared  that  no  tolls  should  be 
levied  on  ships  engaged  in  the  coasting  trade  of  the  United  States 
and  when,  in  further  directing  the  President  to  fix  those  tolls  within 
certain  limits,  it  distinguished  between  vessels  of  the  citizens  of  the 
United  States  and  other  vessels,  was  in  itself  and  apart  from  any 
action  which  may  be  taken  under  it,  inconsistent  with  the  provisions 
of  the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty  for  equality  of  treatment  between  the 
vessels  of  all  nations.  The  exemption  referred  to  appears  to  His 
Majesty's  Government  to  conflict  with  the  express  words  of  rule  1 
of  article  3  of  the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty,  and  the  act  gave  the 
President  no  power  to  modify  or  discontinue  the  exemption. 

In  their  opinion  the  mere  conferring  by  Congress  of  power  to  fix 
lower  tolls  on  United  States  ships  than  on  British  ships  amounts  to  a 
denial  of  the  right  of  British  shipping  to  equality  of  treatment,  and 
is  therefore  inconsistent  with  the  treaty,  irrespective  of  the  particular 
way  in  which  such  power  has  been  so  far  actually  exercised. 

In  stating  thus  briefly  their  view  of  the  compatibility  of  the  act 
of  Congress  with  their  treaty  rights  His  Majesty's  Government  hold 
that  the  difference  which  exists  between  the  two  Governments  is 
clearly  one  which  falls  within  the  meaning  of  Article  I  of  the  arbi- 
tration treaty  of  1908. 

As  respects  the  suggestion  contained  in  the  last  paragraph  but 
one  of  your  note  under  reply  His  Majesty's  Government  conceive 
that  Article  I  of  the  treaty  of  1908  so  clearly  meets  the  case  that 
has  now  risen  that  it  is  sufficient  to  put  its  provisions  in  force  in 
whatever  manner  the  two  Governments  may  find  the  most  convenient. 
It  is  unnecessary  to  repeat  that  a  reference  to  arbitration  would 
be  rendered  superfluous  if  steps  were  taken  by  the  United  States 
Government  to  remove  the  objection  entertained  by  His  Majesty's 
Government  to  the  act. 

His  Majesty's  Government  have  not  desired  me  to  argue  in  this 
note  that  the  view  they  take  of  the  main  issue — the  proper  interpre- 
tation of  the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty — is  the  correct  view,  but  only 
that  a  case  for  the  determination  of  that  issue  has  already  arisen 
and  now  exists.  They  conceive  that  the  interest  of  both  countries 
requires  that  issue  to  be  settled  promptly  before  the  opening  of  the 
canal,  and  by  means  which  will  leave  no  ground  for  regret  or  com- 
plaint. The  avoidance  of  possible  friction  has  been  one  of  the  main 
objects  of  those  methods  of  arbitration  of  which  the  United  States 
has  been  for  so  long  a  foremost  and  consistent  advocate.  His 
Majesty's  Government  think  it  more  in  accordance  with  the  general 
arbitration  treaty  that  the  settlement  desired  should  precede  rather 
than  follow  the  doing  of  any  acts  which  could  raise  questions  of 
actual  damage  suffered;  and  better  also  that  when  vessels  begin  to 
pass  through  the  great  waterway  in  whose  construction  all  the  world 
has  been  interested  there  should  be  left  subsisting  no  cause  of  dif- 
ference which  could  prevent  any  other  nation  from  joining  without 
reserve  in  the  satisfaction  the  people  of  the  United  States  will  feel 
at  the  completion  of  a  work  of  such  grandeur  and  utility. 

I  have,  etc., 

James  Bryce. 


CORRESPONDENCE  SUBMITTED  MAY  7,  1914. 


REPORTED  BY  MR.  HITCHCOCK. 

In  the  Senate  of  the  United  States, 

April  29,  191J,. 

Resolved,  That  the  President  is  hereby  requested,  if  not  incompatible  with 
the  public  interest,  to  cause  to  be  transmitted  to  the  Senate  all  papers,  corre- 
spondence, messages,  and  dispatches  in  the  Department  of  State,  not  heretofore 
communicated  to  Congress,  having  relation  to  certain  tripartite  agreements  or 
conventions,  concluded  between  the  United  States  and  the  Republic  of  Panama, 
the  United  States  and  the  Republic  of  Colombia,  and  the  Republic  of  Colombia 
and  the  Republic  of  Panama,  all  dated  the  ninth  day  of  January,  nineteen  hun- 
dred and  nine,  together  with  all  correspondence  relating  to  the  Hay-Concha 
protocol  not  included  in  the  House  document  six  hundred  and  eleven.  Fifty- 
seventh  Congress,  first  session. 

Attest : 

James  M.  Baker.  Secretary, 

103 


PART   IV. 
LETTERS  OF  TRANSMITTAL. 


To  the  Senate  of  the  United  States: 

In  response  to  the  resolution  of  the  Senate  of  the  29th  ultimo, 
calling  for  certain  correspondence  relating  to  the  so-called  tripartite 
conventions  concluded  in  1909  between  the  United  States,  Colombia, 
and  Panama,  and  for  correspondence  not  heretofore  communicated 
relating  to  the  "  Hay-Concha  protocol,"  I  transmit  herewith  a  report 
of  the  Secretary  of  State  communicating  the  correspondence  called 
for. 


The  White  House, 

Washington,  May  7,  1914. 


Woodrow  Wilson. 


To  the  President  : 

The  undersigned,  Secretary  of  State,  to  whom  was  referred  a 
resolution  reported  from  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations  and 
adopted  April  29,  1914,  by  which  the  President  was — 

requested,  if  not  incompatible  with  the  public  interest,  to  cause  to  be  trans- 
mitted to  the  Senate  all  papers,  correspondence,  messages,  and  dispatches  in 
the  Department  of  State,  not  heretofore  communicated  to  Congress,  having  re- 
lation to  certain  tripartite  agreements  or  conventions  concluded  between  the 
United  States  and  the  Republic  of  Panama,  the  United  States  and  the  Republic 
of  Colombia,  and  the  Republic  of  Colombia  and  the  Republic  of  Panama,  all 
dated  the  ninth  day  of  January,  nineteen  hundred  and  nine,  together  with  all 
correspondence  relating  to  the  Hay-Concha  proctocol,  not  included  in  House 
Document  Numbered  Six  hundred  and  eleven,  Fifty-seventh  Congress,  first  ses- 
sion— 

has  the  honor  to  submit  the  following  report : 

The  resolution  calls  for  papers  and  correspondence  under  two 
heads,  apparently  distinct,  but  in  fact  relating  to  different  stages  of 
one  and  the  same  protracted  negotiation,  namely,  that  which  culmi- 
nated in  the  signature  of  the  conventions,  generally  known  as  the 
tripartite  treaties  of  1909,  between  the  United  States,  Colombia,  and 
Panama. 

The  latter  part  of  the  resolution,  relating  as  it  does  to  correspond- 
ence earlier  in  point  of  time  than  the  first  part  of  the  resolution,  may 
be  first  considered.  This  correspondence  is,  in  part,  contained  in 
House  Document  No.  611,  Fifty-seventh  Congress,  first  session, 
to  which  the  resolution  refers.  It  was  appended  to  a  letter  ad- 
dressed, under  date  of  May  15,  1902,  by  the  then  Secretary  of  State, 
to  the  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Interstate  and  Foreign  Com- 
104 


DIPLOMATIC  HISTOKY  OF  THE  PANAMA  CANAL.  105 

merce  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  and  was  described  by  Mr. 
Hay  as  comprising — 

copies  of  letters  from  the  Colombian  minister,  dated  the  31st  of  March  and 
the  18th  and  23d  of  April,  accompanied  by  the  letter  of  exposition  and  the 
letter  of  William  Nelson  Cromwell,  both  dated  the  31st  of  March,  referred  to 
in  the  minister's  letter  of  that  date;  and  also  a  memorandum  of  a  convention 
which  the  Government  of  Colombia  is  ready  to  sign  with  that  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  respecting  the  completion,  maintenance,  control,  and  pro- 
tection of  an  interoceanic  canal  over  the  Isthmus  of  Panama — 

together  with  pertinent  correspondence  relating,  not  alone  to  the 
contingent  offer  to  the  United  States  of  title  and  rights  in  respect 
to  the  Panama  Canal,  but  also  to  the  alternative  title  and  rights  in 
respect  to  the  previously  proposed  canal  by  the  Nicaraguan  route, 
the  latter  comprising,  among  other  papers,  copies  of  protocols  entered 
into  between  this  Government  and  those  of  Nicaragua  and  Costa 
Rica,  December  1,  1900. 

The  hitherto  unpublished  correspondence  in  connection  with  the 
Hay-Concha  negotiations  is  herewith  submitted  in  order  to  meet  the 
request  of  the  Senate. 

There  was  not  in  May,  1902,  nor  at  any  time,  a  "  Hay-Concha 
protocol,7'  such  as  is  specified  in  the  resolution.  House  Document  No. 
611  contains  substantially  all  the  material  correspondence  antecedent 
to  the  formulation  of  the  original  Hay-Herran  treaty,  signed  Jan- 
uary 22, 1903.  The  negotiation  taken  up  with  Minister  Concha  got  no 
further  than  the  submission  of  the  draft  convention  (printed  in  H. 
Doc.  No.  611)  and  the  announcement  made  by  Mr.  Hay  to  Minister 
Concha  that  he  would  be  ready  to  sign  with  him  the  proposed  con- 
vention— 

as  soon  as  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  shall  have  authorized  the  Presi- 
dent to  enter  into  such  an  arrangement  and  the  law  officers  of  this  Government 
shall  have  decided  upon  the  question  of  the  title  which  the  New  Panama 
Canal  Co.  is  able  to  give  of  all  the  properties  and  rights  claimed  by  it  and 
pertaining  to  a  canal  across  the  Isthmus  and  covered  by  the  pending  proposal. 

The  conditions  thus  prescribed  by  Mr.  Hay  precedent  to  the  con- 
clusion of  a  canal  treaty  with  Colombia  were  not  effected  until 
several  months  later.  After  a  prolonged  discussion  of  the  relative 
merits  of  the  Nicaraguan  and  the  Panaman  routes,  the  Congress,  by 
the  act  approved  June  28,  1902,  preferentially  approved  the  con- 
struction of  a  ship  canal  over  the  Isthmus  of  Panama.  The  title 
offered  by  the  New  Panama  Co.  was  later  pronounced  to  be  good 
and  sufficient.  By  this  time  Minister  Concha  had  quitted  Wash- 
ington. The  Colombian  negotiation  was  then  taken  up  at  the  point 
where  Minister  Concha  had  left  it,  and  carried  to  a  conclusion  with 
his  successor,  Minister  Herran,  January  22,  1903.  Although  its 
ratification  was  advised  and  consented  to  on  the  part  of  the  United 
States  Senate,  it  failed  to  receive  approval  at  Bogota.  The  seces- 
sion of  Panama  followed,  changing  the  conditions  of  the  isthmian 
problem  and  necessitating  negotiations  de  novo  with  the  actual  sover- 
eign power  of  the  Territory  of  Panama. 

The  history  of  the  negotiation  of  the  present  Hay-Bunau  Varilla 
canal  treaty  with  Panama,  and  of  the  position  then  assumed  by 
Colombia  has  been  abundantly  recorded  in  the  voluminous  corre- 
spondence heretofore  communicated  to  the  Congress.  Many  of  the 
papers  in  regard  to  these  events  have  been  printed  in  the  annual 


106  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

volumes  of  diplomatic  correspondence  entitled  "Foreign  Relations  of 
the  United  States,"  and  cover  the  period  between  the  separation  of 
Panama  and  the  initiation  of  the  negotiation  which  culminated  in 
the  signature  of  the  tripartite  treaties  of  1909.  The  course  of  this 
latter  negotiation,  stretching  over  a  period  of  some  three  years,  is  re- 
viewed in  the  report  made  bv  Secretary  Knox  to  the  President  Feb- 
ruary 20,  1913  (H.  Doc.  No.  1444,  62d  Cong.,  3d  sess.),  but  the  corre- 
spondence incident  to  the  conduct  of  the  negotiations  was  not  sub- 
mitted therewith. 

It  would  seem  that  the  request  of  the  Senate  for  information,  not 
heretofore  communicated  to  the  Congress,  having  relation  to  the  de- 
scribed tripartite  conventions,  will  be  met  by  the  communication  of 
a  concordant  selection  of  hitherto  unpublished  correspondence,  of 
record  in  the  Department  of  State,  showing  the  course  of  the  negotia- 
tions which  led  up  to  the  signature  of  the  three  treaties  mentioned  in 
the  resolution.  With  this  view  the  accompanying  collection  of 
papers  is  laid  before  the  President.  In  the  opinion  of  the  under- 
signed, their  communication  to  the  Senate  would  not  be  incompatible 
with  the  public  interests. 

Respectfully  submitted.  *y    y   p 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  May  6.  191 4- 

(List  of  papers  follows.)  .. 


PART  IV-a. 

LIST  OF  PAPERS  RELATING  TO  THE  NEGOTIATION  OF  THE 
TRIPARTITE  TREATIES  OF  JANUARY,  1909. 

1904. 

From  American  legation  at  Bogota,  December  20. 

1905. 
To  same,  January  9. 
From  same,  January  13.     No.  17. 
From  same,  May  8.    Telegram. 

From  Colombian  minister  at  Washington,  October  21.    Not  included. 
(Printed  S.  Doc.  No.  542,  2d  sess.,  60th  Cong.)1 

1906. 

To  same,  February  2.    Not  included.    Printed  in  above  document. 

From  same,  April  6.    Not  included.    Printed  in  above  document. 

From  American  legation  at  Bogota,  April  7.     No.  66. 

From  same  May  23. 

From  same.  June  12.     Telegram. 

From  same,  June  13. 

From  same.  June  13.     No.  103. 

To  same,  June  14.     Telegram. 

From  Colombian  minister  at  Washington.  July  -l. 

From  American  legation  at  Bogota,  July  14.     Telegram. 

To  American  legation  at  Bogota,  July  2.     No.  27. 

Memorandum  signed  by  Mr.  Vasquez  Cobo.  and  handed  to  Mr.  Root. 
September  20. 

From    American    legation    at    Bogota,    August    20.     Not    included. 
(Pritend  S.  Doc.  No.  542,  60th  Cong.,  2d  sess.) 

Memorandum  (confidential)  from  legation  of  Colombia  at  Washing- 
ton, Noyember  8.  1906. 

1907. 

From  Colombian  legation,  January  3. 

From  same,  March  4. 

From  same,  March  7.    Personal  note  to  Mr.  Buchanan. 

To  same,  April  24. 

From  same,  April  25. 

From  same,  May  10.    Substance. 

(At  this  point  there  were  numerous  oral  conferences  between  Mr. 
Taft,  Mr.  Cortes,  the  Colombian  minister,  and  Mr.  Cromwell,  etc.) 

1  See  No.  16,  Appendix. 

107 


108  DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

Protocol  for  a  treaty  between  Colombia  and  Panama,  signed  Au- 
gust 17,  by  Minister  Cortes,  for  Colombia;  by  Mr.  Arango,  for 
Panama :  and  approved  by  William  H.  Taft,  for  the  United  States 
(by  direction  of  the  President). 

Protocol  of  same  date,  for  a  treaty  between  the  United  States  and 
Panama,  signed  by  W.  H.  Taft  and  Mr.  Arango. 

From  Colombian  minister  at  Washington.  August  18. 

To  same,  August  26.     Substance. 

From  same.  December  5. 

To  same.  December  17. 

From  same.  December  20.     No.  277. 

From  same.  December  28. 

1908. 

From  same,  January  26. 

To  same.  January  28. 

To  same.  February  18. 

From  same.  February  19. 

From  Mr.  Taft,  March  11. 

From  Colombian  minister.  March  12. 

From  Secretary  of  State  to  London  and  County  Banking  Co.  (Ltd.), 

March  17. 
To  Colombian  minister,  March  17. 
From  same,  March  31. 
To  Colombian  minister,  April  9. 

From  American  legation  at  Bogota,  October  6.     No.  174. 
To  Colombian  minister.  December  29. 
To  same.  December  30. 
From  same.  December  31. 

1909. 
To  same.  January  1. 
From  same,  January  10.     Substance. 
To  the  President.  January  11  (submitting  the  tripartite  treaties  for 

the  Senate,  printed  Ex.  N..  60th  Cong.,  2d  sess.)     Not  included. 
From  President  of  Colombia  to  Colombian  minister  at  Washington, 

January  12.     Telegram. 
From  American  legation  at  Bogota.  January  13. 
From  American  legation  at  Panama.  January  30. 
From  Panama  minister,  January  31. 
To  American  legation  at  Bogota,  telegram,  February  9. 
From  same.  February  12. 
From  same.  February  14.     Telegram. 
From  same.  February  17.     Telegram. 
From  same.  No.  235,  February  17. 
From  same.  February  23.     Telegram. 
To  same.  February  26.     Telegram. 
From  same.  February  26.     No.  241. 
From  same.  March  1. 
From  same,  telegram,  March  10. 
From  same,  telegram,  March  14. 
To  same.  March  15.    Telegram. 
From  Colombian  minister.  March  16. 

From  American  legation  at  Bogota,  March  16.    Telegram. 
To  same.  March  17.    Telegram. 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY    OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  109 

From  same,  March  18.    Telegram. 

To  same,  March  19.    Telegram. 

To  same,  March  19.    Telegram. 

To  Colombian  minister,  March  19. 

From  same.  March  22.    No.  59. 

To  Colombian  minister,  March  22.    No.  82. 

From  American  legation  at  Bogota.  March  23. 

From  Colombian  legation,  March  21.     No.  62. 

From  American  legation  at  Bogota,  March  26.    Telegram. 

From  same,  March  27.    Telegram. 

From  same,  March  29.    No.  217.    Edited. 

To  same,  April  6. 

To  same,  April  19.    No.  87. 

To  same,  May  1.    No.  89. 

From  same.  May  10.    Telegram. 

From  same.  May  12.    Telegram. 

From  same,  May  13.    No.  262.    Edited. 

From  same,  May  27.    No.  268. 

To  same,  June  11.    Telegram. 

From  same,  June  17.    No.  508. 

From  American  legation  at  Bogota,  September  29.    Telegram. 

From  same,  October  1.    No.  12. 

To  same,  October  1.    Telegram. 

From  same,  October  7.    No.  11.  # 

From  same,  October  13.     Telegram. 

To  same,  October  23.    Telegram. 

To  same,  October  28.    No.  15. 

From  same.  October  29.    No.  20. 

To  same,  November  4.    No.  17. 

1910. 

From  same,  January  5.     Telegram. 
From  same,  February  18.     No.  53. 
To  same,  March  24.    Telegram. 
From  same.  May  13.    No.  81. 


PAPERS  SUBMITTED  RELATING  TO  THE  TRIPARTITE 

TREATIES. 

Minister  Russell  to  Secretary  Hay. 

[Extracts.] 

American  Legation, 
Bogota,  December  W,  1904- 

Sir  :  I  have  the  honor  to  report  that  up  to  the  present  my  relations, 
official  and  otherwise,  with  the  Colombian  Government  have  been 
quite  cordial.  The  feeling  against  our  Government  in  official  circles 
growing  out  of  the  Panama  incident  is  gradually  disappearing,  due 
I  think,  to  the  hope  that  some  negotiations  can  be  effected  with  the 
United  States  Government  by  which  Colombia  in  accepting  the 
"  fait  accompli  "  will  appear  to  her  people  and  the  world  as  not 
having  lost  any  of  her  national  dignity. 

I  have  had  several  long  talks  with  the  minister  of  foreign  affairs, 
and  he  has  intimated  that  it  would  probably  be  the  best  thing  for 
his  county  to  recognize  the  Republic  of  Panama  and  accept  the 
situation,  provided  that  Colombia  could,  by  means  of  commercial 
treaties  and  conventions  wjth  the  United  States  and  Panama,  obtain 
some  of  the  advantages  that  she  had  expected  from  the  construction 
of  the  canal  on  her  territory. 

The  Government  has  informed  me  that  it  is  its  intention  to  send 
a  minister  to  Washington  very  soon.  I  am  convinced  that  the  only 
thing  necessary  to  bring  about  cordial  relations  with  this  country  and 
restore  American  prestige  would  be  some  sort  of  a  treaty  arrangement 
with  the  United  States  and  Panama  by  which  Colombia  conld  obtain 
in  this  usual  and  ordinary  way  some  of  the  advantages  she  has  lost 
by  a  policy  the  consequences  of  which  she  did  not  realize  until  too 
late,  and  which  national  pride,  influenced  considerably  by  an  anti- 
American  political  minority,  prevents  her  from  disavowing  too 
openly  at  present. 

I  am  sir,  Avith  great  respect, 
Your  obedient  servant, 

William  W.  Eussell. 


The  Acting  Secretary  of  State  to  Minister  Russell. 

[Telegram.] 

Department  or  State, 
Washington,  January  9, 1905. 
The  Government  of  Panama  having  been  thoroughly  established 
and  recognized  by  the  civilized  nations  of  the  world,  it  is  not  now  re- 
garded as  competent  to  submit  the  question  of  its  independence  to 
a  plebescite. 
110 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTOEY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL.  Ill 

The  President  will  be  pleased  if  Colombia  will  celebrate  with  Pan- 
ama a  treaty  of  friendship,  commerce,  and  navigation;  also  if  Co- 
lombia were  to  arrange  to  settle  all  questions  not  disposed  of  in  said 
treaty  with  Panama  by  means  of  arbitration. 

Loomis. 


Minister  Russell  to  Secretary  Hay. 

No.  IT.]  American  Legation, 

Bogota,  January  13,  1905. 
Sir:  Referring  to  your  cipher  telegram  of  the  9th  instant,  which 
is  confirmed  in  a  separate  dispatch,  I  have  the  honor  to  state  that  I 
have  just  had  a  long  conference  with  the  President,  during  which 
I  showed  him  a  copy  of  your  cable.  I  asked  Gen.  Reyes  to  kindly 
tell  me  exactly  what  he  would  like  me  to  say  to  my  Government,  and 
his  reply  was  as  follows : 

You  can  say,  Mr.  Russell,  that  I  have  urged  with  some  persistency  this  ques- 
tion of  a  plebiscite  to  decide  the  question  as  to  Panama's  independence,  because 
his  excellency  the  Secretary  of  State  suggested  it  to  me  in  a  memorandum. 
We  all  know  in  Colombia  that  Panama  will  ratify  her  action  of  November  3, 
1903;  but,  as  a  mere  matter  of  form  and  a  salve  to  the  national  honor,  a  deci- 
sion by  plebiscite  will  pave  the  way  to  a  definite  and  final  understanding  be- 
tween all  the  nations  concerned.  It  can  make  not  a  particle  of  difference  to 
the  United  States,  but  to  Colombians  and  to  me  especially  in  the  present  state 
of  public  feeling  it  will  be  the  most  important  step  in  the  policy  of  reconcilia- 
tion and  good  feeling  which  I  am  earnestly  endeavoring  to  pursue. 

The  President  requested  me  to  inform  you  that  in  February  he  is 
going  to  call  a  convention  to  ratify  all  his  decrees  for  the  relief  of 
the  country  which  Congress  failed  to  pass,  reform  the  constitution 
in  regard  to  the  Vice  Presidency,  and  to  ratify  this  proposed  ar- 
rangement in  regard  to  Panama.  The  President  also  requested  me 
to  say  to  you  that  the  congressmen  arrested  some  time  ago  were  all 
prominent  members  of  the  opposition  to  the  Hay-Herran  treaty. 

I  am,  sir,  with  great  respect, 


Your  obedient  servant, 


William  W.  Russell. 


Minister  Russell  to  Secretary  Hay. 

[Telegram.] 

Strictly  confidential.]  American  Legation, 

Bogota,  May  8,  1905. 
Government  of  the  United  States  of  Colombia  is  sending  a  confi- 
dential agent  to  confer  with  the  President  of  the  Republic  of  Panama, 
and  this  agent  will  reach  Panama  about  the  26th.  Same  agent  is 
coming  to  Washington  afterwards  to  communicate  with  Colombian 
minister  there.  Government  of  United  States  of  Colombia  lias  re- 
quested me  to  ask  that  the  American  minister  to  Panama  be  informed 
of  this,  and  that  he  be  requested  to  use  his  good  offices  to  aid  the 
agent  of  Colombia  in  effecting  arrangement  with  the  Republic  of 
Panama. 

Russell. 


112  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

Minister  Bai*rett  to  Secretary  Root. 

No.  66.]  American  Legation, 

Bogota,  April  7,  1906. 

Sir  :  Referring  to  my  No.  64  of  April  2,  1906,  I  have  the  honor  to 
report  further  developments  as  f ollows : 1 

As  a  result  of  the  conference  I  held  with  the  President,  in  which 
we  discussed  in  a  full,  frank,  and  friendly  way  the  relations  of 
Colombia  and  the  United  States,  and  after  he  had  seen  the  report 
in  the  American  papers  that  Colombia  was  displeased  with  your 
reply  to  Minister  Mendoza's  note 2  and  might  therefore  break  off 
relations  with  the  United  States,  he  decided  to  telegraph  explicit 
instructions  to  Minister  Mencloza  to  the  effect  that  he  should  in  no 
way  appear  disturbed  over  your  answer  to  his  note,  but  that,  on  the 
other  hand,  he  should  continue  to  discuss  matters  with  you  in  a 
friendly  way,  in  the  hope  of  promoting  an  amicable  understanding 
between  the  two  countries.  The  President  further  said  that  he  de- 
sired Dr.  Mendoza  to  make  the  same  efforts  in  Washington  that  I 
am  making  in  Bogota  to  develop  the  best  of  relations. 

In  view  of  the  importance  of  this  action  of  the  President  and  of 
the  possibility  that  erroneous  reports   might  be  '  published   in  the 
States,  I  deemed  it  best  to  include  references  to  this  in  my  telegram 
confirmed  in  an  unnumbered  dispatch  of  this  same  date. 
I  have  the  honor,  etc., 

John  Barrett. 

Minister  Barrett  to  Secretary  Root. 

Confidential.]  American  Legation, 

Bogota,  May  23,  1906. 

Sir  :  I  have  the  honor  to  submit  to  you  a  confidential  report  of  an 
informal  discussion  enjoyed  between  President  Reyes  and  myself 
which  has  a  most  important  bearing  on  the  relations  of  the  United 
States  and  Colombia  and  indirectly  on  the  coming  Pan  American 
conference. 

As  you  are  aware  from  previous  dispatches  of  mine,  it  has  been  my 
well-defined  policy  here  not  to  urge  in  any  way  the  recognition  of 
Panama  by  Colombia  or  to  appear  insistent  on  reaching  any  under- 
standing with  the  United  States  as  to  the  questions  which  Colombia 
holds  are  outstanding  and  unsettled.  On  the  other  hand  I  have  en- 
deavored to  employ  officially  and  personally  every  ligitimate  and 
dignified  means  to  soften  the  bitter  feeling  aroused  against  the 
United  States  and  President  Roosevelt  by  the  Panama  incident  and 
to  develop  a  friendlier  attitude  toward  our  Government  and  Presi- 
dent. If  a  just  conclusion  can  be  drawn  from  the  treatment  of 
myself  as  American  minister  by  the  Colombian  Government,  people, 
and  press,  it  would  seem  as  if  my  efforts  were  reciprocated  and  ap- 
preciated, and  good  results  in  consequence  were  being  accomplished. 

Such  feeling,  however,  has  not  crystallized  into  a  tangible  specific 
diplomatic  step  in  the  desired  direction  until  to-day,  Wednesday, 

1  Not  printed.     Merely  incloses  newspaper  clipping. 

2  Printed.     S.  Doc.  No.  542,  60th  Cong.,  2d  sess. 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA  CANAL.  113 

May  23,  when  the  President  invited  me  to  spend  the  day  with  him 
informally  at  Madrid,  his  country  residence.  I  am  writing  this  dis- 
patch immediately  after  my  return  on  the  evening  train  to  Bogota, 
when  all  that  was  said  is  fresh  in  my  mind. 

Soon  after  my  arrival  at  his  house,  the  President  invited  me  into 
his  private  office  with  Dr.  Climaco  Calderon,  his  minister  of  foreign 
affairs,  and  remarked  in  effect  as  follows: 

Mr.  Minister,  I  am  talking  with  you  now  not  so  much  as  President  Reyes 
but  as  your  old  friend  Reyes  of  the  second  Pan  American  conference.  I  desire 
to  speak  frankly  with  you  as  one  in  whom  I  have  complete  confidence  and 
whom  I  believe  to  be  a  sincere  friend  of  mine  and  Colombia,  while  a  loyal 
minister  of  the  United  States.  Then,  too,  you  know  that,  despite  the  Panama 
affair,  I  have  always  been  a  supporter  and  admirer  of  the  United  States  and 
President  Roosevelt,  and  that,  for  instance,  at  the  second  Pan  American  con- 
ference in  Mexico,  I  invariably  acted  in  harmony  with  you  and  your  colleagues 
from  the  United  States.     Now— 

He  continued — 

I  want  to  read  to  you  a  confidential  memorandum  that  has  been  submitted  to 
me  by  one  of  our  prominent  and  able  citizens  in  regard  to  the  relations  of  the 
United  States,  Colombia,  and  Panama,  and  to  learn  what  you  think  of  it.  In 
the  main  it  expresses  my  views  as  far  as  proposed  policy  is  concerned  with  such 
modifications  as  are  self-evidently  necessary. 

He  then  read  the  memorandum,  a  translation  of  which  made  by  his 
orders,  I  attach  hereto  in  the  exact  language  of  the  form  handed  me, 
and  I  would  earnestly  recommend  that  you  read  it  at  this  point  be- 
fore proceeding  to  consider  what  I  have  hereinafter  written. 

When  the  President  had  concluded  the  reading  of  the  memorandum, 
he  made  the  following  observations : 

It  is  true,  as  the  memorandum  says,  that  a  movement  has  been  started  in 
Cauca,  Antioquia,  and  the  Atlantic  Provinces,  in  harmony  with  some  agencies 
and  influences  in  Panama,  to  form  a  new  republic  including  Panama,  and  to 
make  Panama  City  the  capital. 

The  failure  of  Mr.  Mendoza  to  accomplish  anything  for  the  benefit  of  Colombia 
has  given  strength  to  the  movement,  and  the  story  has  been  circulated  that  the 
United  States  will  not  only  quietly  aid  such  a  plan,  but  gladly  recognize  the 
new  republic. 

This  report  has  even  gone  to  Chile,  Argentina,  and  Brazil  and  secured  suffi- 
cient official  credence  there  to  cause  our  minister  to  these  countries,  Gen. 
Uribe-Uribe,  to  telegraph  me  concerning  it  and  inform  me  that  some  of  the 
delegates  of  these  countries  to  the  Rio  conference  might  refer  to  it  as  evidence 
that  the  United  States  was  secretly  preparing  to  repeat  the  Panama  incident 
and  add  to  its  hold  on  South  America.  I  now  wish  to  wire  him  not  only  that 
the  United  States  is  not  abetting  such  a  movement,  but  has  given  me  assurance 
of  an  eventual  settlement  of  our  differences — and  so  frustrate  the  enemies  of 
the  United  States. 

I  am  speaking  frankly,  as  you  know,  when  I  tell  you  that  strong  influence  has 
been  brought  to  bear  on  me  from  other  countries  of  South  America  to  oppose 
the  United  States  at  the  Pan-American  conference  and  even  not  to  send  dele- 
gates, but  I  have  refused,  as  you  are  well  aware,  to  listen  to  such  sugges- 
tions, believing  in  the  high  purpose  of  President  Roosevelt  and  Secretary  Root 
and  the  justice  of  the  United  States  in  its  final  attitude  toward  Colombia. 

I  am  reliably  informed  that  there  are  men  at  work  in  Panama  beyond 
my  reach  to  assist  a  revolution  in  Cuaca  and  Cartagena,  looking  to  union  with 
Panama,  and  I  wish  you  would  kindly  ask  Mr.  Root  to  instruct  Minister  and 
Governor  Magoon  to  watch  any  schemes  or  schemers  of  this  kind  and  use  his  in- 
fluence against  it.  Such  a  movement  can  not  succeed  without  a  long  and 
bloody  war,  for,  if  necessary,  I  should  take  the  field  and  command  myself, 
while,  as  it  is,  I  know  that  I  am  in  control  of  the  situation  and  can  prevent 
any  outbreak  if  the  United  States  does  not  intervene  against  me. 

42112— S.  Doc.  474,  63-2 S 


114  DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

I  shall  be  grateful  if  you  will  cable  your  Government  an  outline  of  my  sug- 
gestions, together  with  a  request  that  its  representative  in  Panama  watch  the 
situation  there  in  reference  to  Cauca,  etc.,  and  then  confirm  your  message  with 
a  full  report  of  our  meeting  and  conversation. 

I  then  took  up  the  conversation  for  a  few  minutes,  and  said  in 
effect  the  following: 

Without  committing  my  Government  in  any  way,  I  thank  you  for  your  frank- 
ness in  reading  and  discussing  this  memorandum.  I  will  forward  it  in  a  con- 
fidential dispatch,  as  yon  desire,  to  Secretary  Root,  aud  await  his  instructions. 
Referring  to  the  comments  you  have  just  made,  I  would  say  first,  that  I  will, 
of  course,  treat  its  suggestions  as  confidential  and  ask  my  Government  to  so 
treat  it.  As  to  the  withdrawal  of  Mr.  Mendoza,  it  would  seem  better  to  me  to 
postpone  such  action  for  the  present  or  until  any  negotiations  might  be 
actually  begun,  for  fear  that  his  recall  might  be  misinterpreted  as  Colombian 
displeasure  with  the  United  States  or  as  a  break  off  of  relations  just  before 
the  Pan-American  conference,  when  signs  of  good  will  were  desirable  on  all 
sides. 

As  to  the  formation  of  a  new  republic,  I  need  hardly  assure  you  that  the 
United  States  has  not  lent  and  will  not  lend  the  least  shadow  of  assistance  to 
any  arrangement  of  the  kind  described  by  you,  and,  if  it  is  asserted  that  the 
United  States  is  secretly  favoring  its  consummation,  such  allegation  is  the  pure 
fabrication  of  its  enemies.  I  am  aware  of  the  anti-American  influences  brought 
to  bear  on  you  in  connection  with  the  Pan  American  conference,  and  I  have 
also  informed  my  Government  that  you  not  only  were  not  moved  by  them,  but 
that  Colombia's  delegates  at  Rio  would  not  embarrass  the  United  States  by 
any  discussion  of  the  Panama  question. 

I  shall  telegraph  my  Government  the  substance  of  your  suggestions  as  ex- 
pressed in  this  memorandum  and  the  recommendation  that  Minister  Ma  goon 
keep  an  eye  on  any  revolutionary  or  new  republic  movement  in  Panama. 

In  regard  to  the  transfer  of  negotiations  from  Washington  to  Bogota,  sug- 
gested in  the  memorandum,  I  must  state  that,  while  I  appreciate  deeply  the 
compliment  to  myself  I  can  not  personally  advise  or  request  my  Government 
to  approve  of  such  a  step.  It  might  seem  better  in  its  opinion  to  conduct  any 
actual  negotiations  in  Washington  where  my  Government  is  always  in  close 
touch  with  Panama  and  where  the  approval  of  the  Senate  is  required  to  any 
treaty,  but,  as  you  do  not  insist  on  negotiations  being  conducted  here,  that  is 
a  point  that  can  be  easily  arranged  later  on. 

At  this  point  I  called  attention  to  the  fact  that,  as  you  would  be 
leaving  the  United  States  early  in  July  for  the  Rio  conference  and  a 
visit  to  South  America  and  not  be  returning  before  September  or 
October,  my  Government,  if  disposed  to  act  on  these  new  suggestions 
of  Colombia,  could  not  take  up  their  careful  consideration  before 
fall.  Gen.  Reyes  replied  that  he  understood  that  situation  and 
would  not  expect  anything  explicit  to  be  accomplished  until  after 
your  return,  but  he  did  hope,  for  reasons  stated  above  and  in  the 
memorandum,  that  the  United  States  Government  would  give  him 
some  direct  assurance  of  willingness  to  undertake  negotiations  along 
these  general  lines  before  the  Pan  American  conference  meets  I 
simply  answered  that  I  would  confirm  my  telegram  with  this  ex- 
tended and  detailed  report  which  should  reach  Washington  in  the 
latter  part  of  June,  and  it  might  be  possible  to  receive  some  definite 
word,  although  I  could  not  promise  it,  before  your  departure. 

President  Reyes  then  enlarged  upon  the  hope  that  you  and  the 
President  would  think  favorably  of  his  proposals.  He  said:  {a) 
That  you  could  not  realize  how  strong  still  was  the  feeling,  amount- 
ing almost  to  intense  hatred,  among  the  people  of  Colombia  against 
the  United  States  on  account  of  its  standing  by  Panama  in  the  hit- 
ter's separation;    (b)    that  only  by  his  constant  watchfulness    and 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PAXAMA   CANAL.  115 

personal  good  will  to  the  United  State-  for  three  years,  followed 
now  by  my  friendly  attitude,  had  outbreaks  against  Americans  and 
American  property  been  prevented:  (c)  that  this  feeling  had  been 
recently  revived  by  those  agitators,  politicians,  and  priests,  who 
insisted  on  making  capital  out  of  your  reply  to  Minister  Mendoza's 
notes:  (d)  that  in,  Antioquia,  Cauca.  and  the  Atlantic  Provinces, 
it  had  developed  in  another  form  into  a  movement,  as  already  de- 
scribed, for  a  new  republic,  until  credence  was  given  the  report  of 
ihe  secret  assistance  of  the  United  States,  not  only  in  the  other 
parts  of  Colombia,  but  in  other  nations  of  South  America ;  (e)  that 
Colombia,  if  peace  could  be  preserved,  was  about  to  enter  upon  a 
period  of  great  material  and  commercial  development  that  would 
be  of  the  highest  value  and  importance  to  the  export  and  financial 
interests  of  the  United  States;  (/)  that  European  trade  and  money 
interests  recognized  the  situation  and  were  doing  all  in  their  power 
to  get  a  firm  hold  on  the  commercial  and  material  opportunities  of 
Colombia  :  and  (g)  that,  finally,  in  a  practical  desire  to  obtain  re- 
sults and  inaugurate  a  new  era  in  the  foreign  relations  of  Colombia, 
lie  now  gave  up  all  hope  of  arbitration  or  indemnity  being  conceded 
by  the  United  States — so  dear  to  the  expectations  of  the  Colombian 
people — and  proposed  the  negotiation  of  new  treaties  on  a  basis 
that  the  United  States,  in  view  of  all  that  Colombia  had  suffered 
and  lost,  must  admit  was  fair  and  equitable. 

Therefore  he  hoped  that  you  and  the  President  would  most  care- 
fully consider  his  intimations  and  thus  open  the  way  to  the  com- 
plete restoration  of  cordial  relations  between  the  United  States  and 
Colombia,  to  the  recognition  of  Panama  by  Colombia,  and  to  the 
establishment  of  permanent  accord  between  the  latter  nations  by 
means  of  a  treaty  of  friendship  and  commerce. 

In  order  to  have  a  perfectly  clear  understanding  in  general  terms 
of  what  he  proposed,  I  then  asked  the  President  to  summarize  them, 
apart  from  the  memorandum,  which  he  did.  as  follows: 

1.  Colombia  desires  to  negotiate  a  new  treaty  of  friendship  and  commerce 
with  the  United  States  (to  supersede  the  treaty  of  1846).  in  which,  in  view 
of  Colombia's  former  sovereignty  and  vital  interests  at  stake,  the  United 
States  shall  grant  to  Colombia  the  same  general  privileges  in  the  canal  and 
Canal  Zone  as  provided  by  the  Hay-Herran  treaty  as  they  affect  trade,  com- 
mercial intercourse,  shipping,  or  practically  the  same  as  now  granted  to  Pan- 
ama in  these  respects. 

2.  Colombia  will  recognize  Panama  as  an  independent  Republic  within  the 
limits  of  the  old  department  of  Panama  .(which  is  now  conceded  to  be  the  pres- 
ent extent  of  Panama),  and  negotiate  with  Panama  a  treaty  of  friendship  and 
commerce,  provided  Panama  will  assume  a  part  of  Colombia's  foreign  debt, 
contracted  before  the  separation  of  Panama,  in  proportion  not  only  to  popula- 
tion, but  to  resources  and  wealth. 

3.  The  United  States  will  use  its  good  offices  and  its  peculiar  relation  of 
responsibility  to  Panama  to  intervene  with  that  Government  and  make  sure 
that  Panama  will  treat  with  Colombia  in  good  faitb  and  do  its  share  and  part 
in  arranging  a  basis  of  settlement  of  the  foreign-debt  question. 

4.  Prior  to  the  negotiation  of  the  Colombia-Panama  treaty.  Colombia  will 
arrange  privately  with  the  United  States,  and  the  latter  with  Panama,  that 
Panama  shall  send  a  confidential  representative  to  Bogota  to  consider  and  sign 
a  protocol,  before  being  officially  received  as  minister  plenipotentiary,  covering 
the  questions  to  be  settled  in  a  forma]  treaty  that  will  be  negotiated  immedi- 
ately after  the  protocol  is  signed. 

5.  The  United  States  Government  will  give,  if  possible,  an  assurance  before 
the    Pan    American    conference    of    its    willingness    to    undertake    negotiations 


116  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA   CANAL. 

along  these  lines  in  order  to  prevent  any  expression  of  feeling  there  against 
the  United  States,  and  to  thwart  any  plans  for  the  formation  of  an  interoceanic 
republic,  which  would  include  Panama  and  the  Colombian  territory  of  Cauca, 
Antioquia,  and  the  Atlantic  provinces,  thus  doing  Colombia  a  great  service  and 
strengthening  the  position  of  the  United  States  not  only  in  Colombia,  but  in 
all  South  America. 

6.  The  actual  negotiations  will  await  the  return  to  Washington  of  Secretary 
Root  from  his  trip  to  South  America,  and  be  conducted  in  the  late  fall  or 
early  part  of  next  year,  when  the  Congresses  of  both  the  United  States  and 
Colombia  will  be  in  session  and  can  consider  and  ratify  the  treaties.  Although 
conditions  favor  Bogota,  it  is  not  material  whether  the  actual  negotiations 
take  place  in  Bogota  or  Washington,  but,  if  in  Washington,  Colombia  will  send 
Enrique  Cortes,  former  minister  of  foreign  affairs,  and  who  went  to  Washing- 
ton in  June,  1905,  as  a  special  representative  of  President  Reyes,  to  act  as  its 
plenipotentiary.  Mr.  Mendoza  being  in  the  meantime  granted  leave  of  absence 
or  transferred. 

7.  The  whole  question  is  to  be  treated  as  confidential  (not  even  made  known 
to  Mr.  Mendoza),  except  as  Colombia  may  telegraph  her  delegates  at  Rio 
Janeiro  about  the  time  the  Pan  American  conference  assembles,  to  the  effect- 
that  preliminary  negotiations  are  begun  which  will  lead  to  a  satisfactory 
adjustment  of  all  questions  at  issue  over  Panama  between  Colombia  and  the 
United  States. 

In  regard  to  receiving  some  word  from  you  before  the  Pan  Ameri- 
can conference,  the  President  emphasized,  in  response  to  my  intima- 
tion that  this  suggestion  might  be  misunderstood,  that  it  was  in  no 
sense  whatever  a  threat  to  the  effect  that  Colombia's  delegates  might 
in  some  way  bring  up  the  Panama  or  new  republic  questions  at  the 
conference  or  quietly  approve  of  its  being  done  by  others  in  the  event 
no  favorable  answer  came  from  Washington ;  on  the  other  hand,  the 
delegates  of  Colombia  desired  the  assurance  so  as  to  be  able  to  defi- 
nitely frustrate  any  attempt  of  the  kind  among  other  delegates  and 
to  remove  all  cause  of  suspicion  and  intrigue  based  on  false  reports 
or  jealousy  of  the  United  States.  The  President  added  that  he 
showed  his  frankness  and  fair  dealing  with  me  and  the  United  States 
by  informing  me  that  efforts  had  been  made  and  were  being  made  to 
have  him  sanction  or  assist  a  movement  against  the  United  States  in 
the  conference. 

In  conclusion  I  would  state  that  my  conference  with  President 
Reyes  and  Dr.  Calderon  extended  over  several  hours.  It  was  char- 
acterized with  the  greatest  frankness  and  friendliness  of  discussion. 
Both  the  President  and  minister  of  foreign  affairs  seemed  deeply  in- 
terested in  the  subject  and  most  anxious  that  you  and  President 
Roosevelt  should  appreciate  and  reciprocate  their  sincerity  of  pur- 
pose. They  were  good  enough  to  say  that  my  attitude  and  policy 
as  minister  here  had  paved  the  way  to  their  determination  to  seek  a 
settlement  on  a  new  basis  of  the  Panama  question  and  to  lay  their 
complete  plans  in  confidence  before  me  for  submission  to  you  and 
President  Roosevelt, 

In  view  of  its  confidential  and  highly  important  character.  I  am 
marking  the  dispatch  "  Confidential  "  and  giving  it  no  number. 
There  is  not  time  to  prepare  and  confirm  the  telegram  I  shall  send 
on  this  subject  before  the  mail  closes. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be.  sir, 
Your  obedient  servant. 

John  Barrett. 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTOKY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  117 

[Verbatim  copy  of  translation   made  in  Colombian  foreign  office  and  handed  to  Minister 

Barrett.] 

Memorandum. 

Bogota,  May  23,  1906. 
Opinions  of  a  Colombian  citizen  who  loves  his  country  more  than 
anyone  else,  who  wishes  for  its  prosperity  and  greatness,  who  recog- 
nizes the  cessation  of  Panama  as  an  accomplished  fact,  who  is  a 
friend  of  the  United  States,  who  wishes  that  the  extraordinary  civili- 
zation reached  to  by  that  country  may  spread  itself  all  over  South 
America  by  practicing  the  "American  Ideals"  of  its  President,  Mr. 
Roosevelt,  that  the  questions  pending  between  the  United  States, 
Colombia,  and  Panama  be  arranged  in  a  dignified  and  honorable 
manner,  and  that  this  last  country  constitutes  itself  to  the  good  of  its 
inhabitants  and  to  avoid  the  scandal  and  new  shedding  of  blood  on 
Colombian  territory  on  account  of  the  Panama  question. 

I.  It  is  well  known  that  the  negotiations  of  the  Legation  of  Colom- 
bia in  Washington,  that  Messrs.  Diego  Mendoza  and  Enrique  Cortes 
initiated,  under  favorable  circumstances,  for  the  settlement  of  the 
Panama  question,  have  failed  because  Mr.  Cortes,  whose  highmind- 
edness,  friendly  feeling  towards  the  United  States,  and  thorough 
knowledge  of  the  English  language,  would  have  obtained  good  suc- 
cess in  this  negotiation,  had  to  separate  himself  from  the  Legation; 
and  Mr.  Mendoza  failed  because  he  determined  to  insist  on  obtaining 
the  declaration  from  the  United  States  that  that  country  had  car- 
ried out  the  revolution  in  Panama.  The  failure  of  his  mission  can  be 
considered  as  his  last  offense  to  the  American  Government. 

II.  It  is  also  known  that,  owing  to  Minister  Mendoza  Perez'  attitude 
and  to  his  failure,  certain  Colombian  and  Panama  citizens  have  pro- 
posed the  formation  with  Panama,  the  Atlantic  coast  of  Colombia, 
and  the  Departments  of  Antioquia  and  Cauca,  of  the  Interoceanic 
Republic  with  the  City  of  Panama  as  a  probable  capital,  and  that 
the  United  States  should  second  this  project. 

Although  at  first  sight  the  realization  of  such  a  project  seems  easy, 
it  is  not  so,  for  the  following  reasons: 

(a)  The  popular  feeling  of  hatred  of  the  entire  population  of 
Colombia  against  the  United  States  and  Panama,  in  consequence  of 
the  cessation  of  the  last,  is  so  intense  that,  in  order  to  calm  such  a 
feeling,  it  has  been  necessary  to  use  all  the  prestige  and  energy  of 
President  Reyes,  and  to  sustain  during  three  years  a  campaign  of 
frankness  and  patriotism  to  avoid  the  outbreak  of  such  feelings 
against  the  American  citizens  living  in  the  country ;  and  such  an 
attitude  on  the  part  of  the  President  was  one  of  the  main  causes  of 
the  attempt  on  his  life  made  on  the  tenth  of  February.  This  feeling 
is  so  much  alive,  even  at  the  present  day,  that,  if  they  intended  to 
carry  out  the  project  of  the  Interoceanic  Republic,  the  popular  mass 
would  raise  up  at  once,  headed  and  encouraged  by  the  Catholic  clergy 
that  would  see  its  religion  menaced  by  the  Protestant  creed,  and  a 
war  would  follow,  worse  in  character  than  the  Civil  War  of  three 
years  duration,  which  was  followed  by  the  cessation  of  Panama  and 
thp.  ruin  of  Colombia.     The  consequence  of  such  a  war  would  be  tha 


118  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

definite  establishment  of  anarchy  throughout  Colombia ;  and  the 
United  States  would  bear  before  the  world  and  before  history  the 
entire  responsibility  of  having  caused  the  anarchic  revolution. 

(b)  Among  the  measures  taken  by  the  Government  in  the  rebuild- 
ing of  the  Nation,  one  of  the  principal  ones  is  the  construction  of 
railways  and  two  of  the  main  lines  are  in  the  hands  of  American 
citizens;  viz  the  line  from  Buenaventura  on  the  Pacific  coast  to  the 
interior  of  Colombia,  probably  to  Bogota ;  and  those  represented  by 
Mr.  Ford :  the  Cartagena  Railway  Company  and  the  Magdalena 
Steamship  Navigation  Company,  both  worked  with  Boston  capital. 
A  movement  of  cessation  on  the  mentioned  basis  would  be  a  call  of 
attack  of  the  people  against  the  mentioned  grantees  and  their  works 
Avhich  the  Government  would  be  incapable  of  avoiding. 

III.  In  the  delicate  and  dangerous  position  created  by  the  war  of 
three  years  duration,  followed  by  the  cessation  of  Panama  and  the 
ruin  of  Colombia,  which  ruin  would  render  easier  the  outbreak  of  a 
social  and  anarchic  revolution  that  only  the  energetic  will  of  Presi- 
dent Reyes  and  his  moral  and  military  prestige  have  been  able  to 
hold  back,— in  this  position  rendered  worse  with  the  project  of  the 
Interoceanic  Republic, — it  seems  wise  that  before  seconding  such  a 
project  that  would  undoubtedly  cause  the  entire  loss  of  the  Co- 
lombian Nation  as  well  as  the  loss  of  the  different  Departments 
that  intend  to  form  a  nation,  it  would  be  patriotic  and  humane  to 
act  as  follows : 

(a)  To  bring  to  Bogota  the  negotiations  pending  in  Washington 
in  relation  to  the  question  of  Panama,  Colombia,  and  the  United 
States. 

(b)  To  profit  of  the  presence  in  Bogota  of  the  American  Minister, 
the  Hon.  John  Barrett,  a  high  minded  gentleman  and  a  personal 
and  old  friend  of  President  Reyes,  who  thoroughly  knows  the  in- 
terests aspirations,  and  necessities  of  Spanish  American  countries, 
and  who  also  is  a  friend  of  the  President  of  Panama  and  a  genuine 
representative  of  the  high  ideals  of  progress  and  civilization  of  the 
people  and  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  to  profit  of  his 
presence  in  Bogota  to  confer  with  the  Government  of  Colombia 
and  to  end  in  a  generous,  just,  and  high  minded  manner  the  ques- 
tions pending  between  the  United  States  and  Colombia  and  Panama, 
which  settlement  could  be  carried  out  in  the  shape  of  a  Treaty  among 
the  three  countries  on  the  basis  hereafter  mentioned,  or  perhaps 
better  in  two  separate  Treaties,  one  between  the  United  States  and 
Colombia  and  the  other  between  Colombia  and  Panama.  The  first 
one  could  be  made  on  the  following  basis : 

1st.  Colombia  undertakes  to  recognize  the  independence  of  Panama 
and  to  celebrate  treaties  of  peace,  commerce,  and  friendship  with 
Panama  and  consequently  to  declare  null  and  void  the  Treaty  of 
1846  between  Colombia  and  the  United  States. 

2nd.  Colombia  will  celebrate  a  Treaty  of  friendship,  commerce, 
etc.,  etc.,  with  the  United  States  under  the  most  ample  and  con- 
venient terms  to  both  countries. 

3rd.  The  United  States,  in  consideration  that  the  Zone  through 
which  the  Canal  is  being  constructed  belonged  to  Colombia,  and 
that  Colombia  has  important  towns  on  both  coasts,  which  towns  are 
called,  on  account  of  their  situation,  to  help  in  the  construction  and 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA  CANAL.  119 

conservation  of  the  Canal,  grants  to  Colombia  the  following  privi- 
leges (Those  of  the  Treaty  Herran-Hay  and  the  entrance  to  the 
Canal  Zone  of  Colombian  products  under  the  same  conditions  as  those 
coming  from  Panama.) 

Basis  on  which  can  be  celebrated  a  Treaty  with  Panama. 

The  United  States  and  Colombia  would  arrange  in  a  private 
manner  that  the  Panama  Government  should  send  a  Plenipotentiary 
Minister  to  Bogota.  General  Santiago  de  la  Guardia,  the  present 
Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  in  Panama  would  be  a  desirable  candi- 
date, with  whom,  and  before  being  officially  received,  a  representative 
of  the  Colombian  Government  would  sign  a  protocol  or  treaty  of 
the  questions  that  would  be  considered  once  the  Panama  Minister 
was  received;  which  questions  could  be  as  follows: 

(a)  The  acknowledgment  of  the  independence  of  Panama  within 
the  limits  of  the  old  Department  of  Panama,  before  its  cessation 
from  Colombia. 

(b)  That  Panama  should  acknowledge  and  pay  to  Colombia  a 
part  of  the  National  Debt  in  proportion  to  her  resources  and  wealth. 

(c)  The  other  conditions  customary  in  such  treaties. 

IV.  As  can  be  clearly  seen,  the  form  and  essential  part  of  the 
project  to  put  an  end  to  the  vexatious  situation  existing  between  the 
United  States,  Colombia,  and  Panama  since  the  cessation  of  the  last, 
takes  into  consideration  the  interests  of  the  three  countries,  those  of 
the  cause  of  civilization  of  justice,  and  the  good  name  of  the  United 
States,  which  is  today  a  matter  of  discussion  and  comment  in  an 
unfavorable  manner  among  South  American  and  Central  American 
countries.  At  the  same  time  the  talents  and  exceptional  conditions  of 
Minister  Barrett  and  the  good  will  of  both  the  Presidents  of  Panama 
and  Colombia  could  be  profited  as  it  is  well  to  remember  that  General 
Reyes  is  universally  liked  in  Panama,  because  he  always  defended 
the  interests  of  that  part  of  Colombia  and  in  the  National  Assembly 
which  met  in  1885  he  had  to  contend  against  Senor  Caro,  the  repre- 
sentative for  Panama,  in  order  to  make  of  that  State  a  Department, 
and  not  a  Territory  as  it  was  then  pretended.  It  is  certain  that  if 
General  Reyes  had  been  President  when  the  Herran-Hay  Treaty  was 
signed,  the  Treaty  would  have  been  approved  and  the  loss  of  the 
Isthmus  avoided. 

V.  These  opinions,  dictated  by  the  love  we  profess  to  our  country, 
by  the  interest  of  civilization,  and  also  by  the  good  name  of  the 
United  States  which  history  and  world  would  hold  responsible  for 
the  misfortuntes  that  the  project  of  the  formation  of  the  Interoceanic 
Republic  would  cause  if  carried  out,  will  be  sent  to  the  President  of 
Colombia,  to  the  American  Minister,  the  Honorable  John  Barrett, 
and  to  other  persons  whom  we  may  think  interested  in  the  questions 
herein  related. 

VI.  It  is  urgent  that,  before  the  meeting  of  the  Pan-American 
Conference  in  Brazil  the  Governments  of  the  United  States  and 
Colombia  or  their  Ministers  arrive  at  an  understanding  in  reference 
to  the  mentioned  basis  in  order  to  prevent  the  enemies  of  the  United 
States  and  of  the  success  of  the  said  Conference  from  carrying  out 
their  design  of  making  believe  that  the  United  States  are  fomenting 
or  patronizing  a  revolution  in  Colombia  in  order  to  obtain  the  pro- 
jected Republic,  as  it  happened  in  Panama.     In  reference  to  the 


120  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

Treaties  being  celebrated  in  Bogota  it  is  not  a  matter  of  importance ; 
they  can  be  celebrated  in  Washington  next  Autumn;  but  it  is  con- 
venient that  the  Colombian  Delegates  in  Brazil  should  have  instruc- 
tions from  their  Government  to  deny  the  malicious  charges  that  it  is 
known  will  be  made  against  the  American  Government  in  relation 
to  the  Panama  question,  and  the  patronizing  of  a  new  revolution  in 
Colombia. 


[Telegram.] 

Mr.  Barrett  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

Bogota,  June  12,  1906. 
Minister  of  Colombia  at  Washington  has  telegraphed  to  the  Presi- 
dent of  Colombia  as  follows: 

In  order  to  remove  wrong  impression,  am  glad  to  inform  you  that  a  group  in 
Congress  has  begun  action  favorable  to  arbitration,  which  does  not  antagonize 
the  President  of  the  United  States  and  has  not  to  do  with  politics.  Will  advise 
you  of  the  result.    A  new  course  it  will  be  fatal. 

Such  information  in  view  of  your  note  of  February  10  x  to  the 
minister  of  Colombia  and  recent  telegrams  is  a  great  surprise  for  the 
President,  but  he  fears  minister  of  Colombia  makes  such  report  to 
stop  his  recall,  which  the  President  has  ordered.  He  requests  that  I 
ascertain  and  let  him  know  at  once  is  there  any  foundation  for  the 
statement  of  minister  of  Colombia. 

Barrett. 


Minister  Barrett  to  Secretary  Root. 

American  Legation, 

Bogota,  June  13, 1906. 
Dear  Mr.  Secretary:  In  view  of  the  probability  of  Mr.  Root's 
departure  from  Washington,  I  beg  to  inclose  a  copy  of  a  personal 
note  which  I  mailed  to  him  at  New  York,  care  of  the  United  States 
dispatch  agent,  in  the  hope  of  catching  him  before  he  sailed.  The 
inclosures  referred  to  accompany  my  No.  103  of  this  date  (excepting 
the  one  about  Buenos  Aires).  I  hope  that  you  will  find  time  to  read 
not  only  this  inclosed  private  note  to  Mr.  Root  but  the  official  dis- 
patch mentioned.  You  may  also  think  it  best  to  submit  them  to  the 
President,  in  view  of  the  importance  of  the  proposed  negotiations 
of  Colombia  with  the  United  States  and  Panama  for  new  treaties. 
Great  interest  is  being  manifested  here,  caused  by  rumors  that  natu- 
rally get  started,  and  if  the  negotiations  are  successfully  consum- 
mated next  fall  a  splendid  new  era  will  be  inaugurated  in  the  rela- 
tions of  the  United  States,  not  only  with  Colombia,  but,  by  natural 
effect,  with  all  Latin  America. 
Yours,  very  respectfully, 

John  Barrett. 

1  Printed  In  S.  Doc.  542,  60th  Cong.,  2d  sess. 


diplomatic  history  of  the  panama  canal.  121 

American  Legation, 

Bogota,  June  13,  1906. 

Dear  Mr.  Secretary  :  As  this  mail  will  probably  reach  New  York 
just  as  you  are  sailing  for  Rio  Janerio,  and,  as  I  assume,  you  are  de- 
sirous of  knowing  the  latest  developments  in  the  proposed  new  nego- 
tiations between  Colombia  and  the  United  States,  I  beg  to  inclose  a 
copy  of  my  last  dispatch  to  the  department,  forwarded  in  the  pouch 
by  this  same  mail.  I  inclose  also  a  few  notes  on  Buenos  Aires,  which 
you  may  be  interested  in  reading  when  you  have  spare  moments  on 
shipboard. 

It  would  gratify  you  to  see  with  your  own  eyes  the  tangible  inter- 
est which  Colombians  of  all  classes  are  manifesting  in  the  eventual 
restoration  of  a  complete  entente  cordiale  with  the  United  States. 
The  only  embarrassing  part  of  it  is  that  they  give  me  altogether 
more  credit  than  I  deserve  and  wish  to  show  me  honors  and  atten- 
tions that  I  want  to  avoid.  Although  I  have  invariably  been  treated 
with  a  courtesy  that  has  gradually  grown  more  marked  as  the  people 
have  endeavored  to  reciprocate  my  attitude  and  policy  of  friendliness, 
I  was  not  prepared  for  the  effusive  feeling  that  now  is  expressed  on 
all  sides. 

Although  I  have  said  nothing  publicly  myself,  President  Reyes  has 
begun  a  careful  propaganda  in  the  press  to  prepare  the  people  for 
new  negotiations  and  to  develop  a  friendly  sentiment  to  the  United 
States,  as  well  as  the  realization  of  the  impossibility  of  arbitration 
and  indemnity,  so  treasured  in  the  mind  of  the  average  Colombian. 
He  knows  that  he  has  a  hard  task  because  there  still  remains  a  strong 
undercurrent  of  resentment  among  certain  classes  of  people,  but  from 
their  attitude  toward  me  I  am  convinced  that  the  higher  classes  in- 
tend to  support  him.  I  consider  the  unsought  assurance  of  aid  in 
my  labors  which  have  been  given  me  by  the  powerful  Archbishop 
Bernardo,  of  Bogota,  and  the  papal  nuncio,  Monsenor  Ragonesi,  as 
having  far-reaching  significance.  I  say  "  unsought,"  for,  while  I 
have  not  asked  or  suggested  their  cooperation,  I  have,  on  the  other 
hand,  recognized  their  mighty  influence  and  cultivated,  since  my  ar- 
rival here,  a  strong  confidential  friendship  with  them  which  is  now 
bearing  fruit. 

When  we  remember  four  things,  Mr.  Secretary,  it  would  seem  as 
if  we  ought  to  treat  Colombia  as  liberally  as  possible : 

1.  It  will  take  generations,  otherwise,  to  remove  a  deep-seated  feel- 
ing against  the  United  States  throughout  the  length  and  breadth  of 
the  land  which  can  now  be  almost  immediately  and  effectually  up- 
rooted by  giving  Colombia  special  concessions  of  shipping  and  trade 
in  the  canal  and  Canal  Zone. 

2.  Colombia  is  undoubtedly  the  richest  country  in  latent  possibili- 
ties and,  in  proportion  to  area,  of  all  Latin  America,  and,  unless  the 
United  States  negotiates  a  favorable  treaty,  the  benefit  of  the  future 
development  and  commerce  is  sure  to  go  largely  to  European  coun- 
tries, which  are  already  plainly  preparing  to  make  the  most  of  their 
opportunities. 

3.  We  must  always  take  into  consideration  the  possibilities  of  war 
with  some  powerful  European  or  Asiatic  country,  in  which  case  it 
would  be   of  transcendental  importance  to   prevent   such  splendid 


122  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

harbors  as  Cartagena,  on  the  Caribbean,  and  Buenaventura,  on  the 
Pacific,  together  with  the  respective  strategic  and  supply-producing 
coast  lines  of  Colombia,  being  used  by  or  favorable  to  our  enemies. 

4.  Despite  the  fact  that  Colombia  is  to  blame  for  not  ratifying  the 
Hay-Herran  treaty,  a  large  part  of  Colombia,  particularly  the  rich 
provinces  of  Cauca  on  the  Atlantic,  Bolivar  on  the  Pacific,  and  An- 
tioquia  between,  were  actually  and  strongly  in  its  favor  but  were 
overruled  by  the  interior  and  mountain  Provinces.  Against  their 
own  will  the  populations  of  these  sections  were  made  to  accept  inju- 
rious conditions  to  them.  If  the  United  States  now  restores  in  a 
measure  by  concessions  of  trade,  shipping,  and  transit  what  they 
have  lost,  it  will  win  their  everlasting  gratitude  and  devotion  which, 
in  turn,  means  everything  for  our  commerce  in  peace  and  their 
assistance  in  war. 

The  President  has  spoken  to  me  several  times  about  your  stopping 
at  Cartagena  part  of  a  day  at  least  en  route  from  Panama  to  New 
York,  and  has  asked  my  opinion  about  the  wisdom  of  inviting  you. 
It  is  probable  that  I  will  soon  telegraph  you  on  this  subject.  It  will 
have  an  excellent  effect  on  Colombia  if  you  accept. 

As  nothing  more  will  be  done  toward  actual  negotiations  until 
November  or  after  your  return,  and  as  President  Reyes  has  practi- 
cally decided  to  make  an  extended  visit  to  the  interior  States  about 
August  1,  it  is  probable  that  I  may  ask  for  leave  of  absence  to  come 
home  in  August,  returning  in  November,  or  remaining  in  Washing- 
ton to  assist  you  in  the  negotiations,  as  you  may  think  best. 

I  would  not  take  up  your  time  with  such  a  long  letter  were  it  not 
for  the  importance  of  these  proposed  negotiations  and  the  serious 
handicap  of  distance  and  time  in  communication. 
Very  respectfully,  yours, 

John  Barrett. 

Hon.  Elihu  Root,  Etc.,  New  York. 


Minister  Barrett  to  Secretary  Root. 

American  Legation, 
No.  103.]  Bogota,  June  13, 1906. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  report  still  further  important  develop- 
ments in  the  matter  of  the  proposed  negotiation  of  new  treaties  of 
peace,  friendship,  and  commerce  between  Colombia  on  the  one  hand 
and  the  United  States  and  Panama,  respectively,  on  the  other. 

I.  President  Reyes  is  taking  so  much  interest  in  the  subject  that  lie 
frequently  confers  both  with  me  and  his  cabinet  ministers  and  other 
prominent  Colombians  with  reference  to  awakening  a  sentiment  in 
Colombia  favorable  to  negotiations  and  to  the  surrender  of  the  hope 
of  arbitration  and  indemnity,  so  dear  to  the  average  Colombian 
which  he  now  realizes  the  United  States  can  not  allow  for  good 
and  sufficient  reasons,  carefully  stated  in  your  note  of  February  10, 
1906.1  to  Minister  Mendoza  and  confirmed  in  my  various  discussions 
with  him.  In  view  of  the  necessity  of  preparing  the  people  for  what 
is  to  come,  President  Reyes  has  commenced  writing  some  memoranda 

i  Printed  in  S.  Doc.  No.  542. 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA  CANAL.  123 

for  the  use  of  editors  and  political  essayists.  He  has  just  handed  me 
a  translated  copy  of  the  first  of  these,  and  I  inclose  a  verbatim  repro- 
duction of  it  as  delivered.  I  beg  to  recommend  that  you  read  it  care- 
fully, as  it  will  give  you  a  good  idea  of  some  of  the  thoughts  in  his 
mind. 

II.  A  most  significant  development  is  the  newly  announced  fact,  not 
generally  appreciated  heretofore,  that  the  large,  prosperous,  and 
powerful  Provinces  of  Cauca  on  the  Pacific,  Bolivar  on  the  Atlantic, 
and  Antioquia  between  them  were  unanimously  favorable  to  a  ratifi- 
cation of  the  Hay-Herran  treaty,  and  their  influences  should  have 
prevailed,  but,  in  the  political  excitement  of  the  moment,  the  sway  of 
Bogota  and  the  mountain  Provinces  far  from  the  sea  carried  the 
day.  Now  these  coast  States  are  coming  forward  and  demanding 
that  all  Colombia  agree  to  the  negotiation  of  treaties  with  Panama 
and  the  United  States  which  will  help  to  build  up  their  languishing 
commerce.  As  evidence  of  this  feeling,  I  respectfully  call  your  par- 
ticular attention  to  the  inclosed  translation  of  an  interview  which 
appeared  yesterday,  June  12,  1906,  in  the  Correo  Nacional,  of  Bogota, 
the  principal  Government  organ  of  Colombia,  with  Dr.  Ignacio 
Palau,  one  of  the  ablest  men  in  the  Republic  and  editor  of  the  Correo 
del  Cauca,  the  chief  newspaper  of  the  powerful  State  of  Cauca.  His 
closing  words,  containing  almost  a  distinct  threat,  have  created  a 
sensation  here  and  are  being  discussed  on  every  street  corner.  My 
opinion,  however,  is  that  Bogota  realizes  the  claims  of  the  coast  and 
will  not  stand  out  against  treaties  that  are  reasonable  in  their  pro- 
visions. 

III.  President  Reyes  has  fully  determined  to  send  a  new  minister 
to  Washington  to  replace  Dr.  Mendoza  Perez.  He  has  already  cabled 
the  latter  to  return  to  Bogota,  but  the  minister  seems  indisposed  to 
leave.  He  has  telegraphed  President  Reyes  a  statement  about  prob- 
able arbitration,  which  the  President  can  not  believe  to  be  true,  in 
view  of  your  note  of  February  10,  1906.  to  Dr.  Mendoza,  and  as  you 
have  said  nothing  of  any  such  movement  in  the  recent  telegrams  ex- 
changed. At  his  request  I  cabled  you  yesterday  about  this  matter 
and  my  message  is  confirmed  in  an  unnumbered  dispatch  of  this  same 
date.  A  reply  will  probably  come  to-day,  after  the  mail  is  closed. 
or  to-morrow.  The  President  has  several  times  told  me  that  he  has 
never  approved  of  the  arguments  advanced  and  methods  employed 
by  Dr.  Mendoza  at  Washington,  but,  as  the  minister  has  had  confi- 
dence in  the  ultimate  success  of  his  own  procedure,  the  President  has 
allowed  him  to  remain  until  now.  It  is  probable  that  either  Mr. 
Enrique  Cortes,  who  came  to  Washington  as  a  special  representative 
of  President  Reyes  in  June,  1905,  and  was  introduced  bj  me  to  Presi- 
dent Roosevelt,  or  some  other  eminent  Colombian  who  speaks 
English,  will  succeed  him,  and  be  ready  to  negotiate  with  you  in 
November. 

IV.  Desiring,  in  the  light  of  progress  made  toward  an  entente 
cordiale  with  the  United  States,  to  have  Colombia  creditably  rep- 
resented at  the  Pan-American  Conference  and  to  be  sure  of  this  dele- 
gation working  in  accord  with  that  of  the  United  States,  the  Presi- 
dent has  appointed  Jorge  Holguin,  a  distinguished  Colombian  states- 
man and  polished  gentleman  now  in  Paris,  as  chairman  of  the  Co- 
lombian delegation,  and  instructed  him  to  proceed  to  New  York  and 
meet  Dr.  Valencia,  coming:  via  Panama,  for  conference  with  you. 


124  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

Mr.  Holguin  is  one  of  the  richest  and  most  influential  men  of  the 
Republic,  and  has  resided  some  time  in  Europe  as  President  Reyes's 
chief  financial  agent.  It  is  possible  that  he  may  not  be  able  to  ac- 
cept, or,  if  he  does  accept,  to  go  via  New  York,  because  of  the  short 
notice  of  his  appointment  and  necessary  preparations;  but  it  is  to 
be  hoped  that  his  decision  will  be  favorable. 

V.  It  is  gratifying  to  note  the  interest  that  is  being  manifested, 
through  assurances  of  aid  and  cooperation,  to  me  of  powerful  in- 
fluences which  can  assist  greatly  in  promoting  friendly  relations 
between  the  United  States  and  Colombia  and  in  preparing  the 
people  to  accept  new  treaties  with  Panama  and  the  United  States. 
Among  others,  I  refer  particularly  to  the  church  and  clergy,  which, 
I  am  told,  worked  against  the  Hay-Herran  treaty.  Both  the  Arch- 
bishop of  Bogota  and  the  papal  nuncio  have  emphatically  expressed 
to  me  their  desire  to  help  me  in  any  way  possible — and  their  say 
is  even  more  mighty  with  the  people  at  large  than  that  of  President 
Reyes.  Although  I  have  not  sought  such  cooperation,  I  have,  since 
my  first  arrival  here,  made  it  a  point  to  maintain  excellent  relations 
with  the  church  dignitaries  and  show  them  the  good  intentions  of 
the  United  States.  Political  leaders  of  different  parties  who  fought 
the  Hay-Herran  treaty  and  who  for  a  long  time  would  not  come  near 
the  United  States  legation,  now  call  frequently  upon  me  and  admit 
their  desire  to  see  a  confirmation  in  a  new  treaty  of  the  growing 
new  entente  cordiale  between  the  United  States  and  Colombia. 

VI.  While,  therefore,  the  outlook  for  the  eventual  success  of 
negotiations  is  good,  it  must  be  remembered  that  the  still  remain- 
ing underlying  resentment  among  certain  classes  of  people  against 
the  United  States  and  the  machinations  of  diverse  political  interests 
may  place  obstacles  in  the  way  which  it  will  require  careful  manage- 
ment and  patience  to  remove.  I  have  done  everything  possible 
during  the  past  eight  months  to  overcome  such  difficulties  and  to 
bring  about  a  new  state  of  feeling  toward  the  United  States.  The 
first  direct  and  preparatory  official  steps  have  now  been  taken  for 
new  treaties  with  Panama  and  the  United  States.  The  next  will  be 
at  Washington  in  November.  In  the  meantime,  as  little  more  can 
be  done  here  until  then,  and  as  President  Reyes  expects  soon  to  be 
absent  from  the  capital  on  an  extended  trip  to  the  coast  and  interior 
Provinces,  I  may  ask  your  permission  to  go  home  on  leave  of  absence. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir, 
Your  obedient  servant, 

John  Barrett. 


[Literal  and  verbatim  copy  of  an  impersonal  memorandum  handed  to  Minister  Barrett  by 
President  Reyes.  June  12,  1906.] 

June  10.  1906. 
the  panama  and  united  states  question. 

A.  It  is  high  time  to  define  this  most  important  question  which 
involves  not  only  the  commercial  interests  of  our  litoral  on  the 
coasts  of  the  two  oceans,  but  those  of  the  whole  interior  of  the  Re- 
public and  especially  those  of  the  Departments  of  Cauca  and  Marino 
on  account  of  their  obliged  transit  through  the  Isthmus  to  Europe 
and  the  United  States.     The  Departments  of  the  Atlantic  coasts  also 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE  •  PANAMA   CANAL.  125 

have  great  commercial  interests  in  Panama,  as  it  is  a  well  known  fact 
that,  during  the  time  that  the  French  Company  was  working  on  the 
Canal,  they  were  the  principal  purveyors  of  the  workingmen  of  the 
Canal  and  derived  many  thousands  of  dollars  from  this  trade  each 
month. 

B.  It  is  well  to  remember  the  fact  that  when  the  Herran-Hay 
Treaty  was  about  to  be  discussed,  the  Town  Councils  of  Cali,  Pal- 
mira, etc.,  etc.,  and  a  great  many  distinguished  citizens,  asked  the 
Colombian  Government,  through  Congress,  to  approve  the  said 
Treaty  and  to  save  thereby  the  commercial  interests  of  those  regions ; 
but  the  political  passion  of  the  sectarians  leading  Congress  at  the 
time  reached  to  such  an  extreme  that  they  withheld  those  petitions 
from  the  public  knowledge. 

C.  Public  feeling  at  the  time  the  question  was  dealt  with  had 
reached  to  a  high  degree  of  madness  in  the  Capital  and  nobody  can 
be  held  especially  responsible  as  that  feeling  was  almost  general. 
Perhaps  no  more  than  three  gentlemen  were  free  from  the  contagion 
and  had  the  civil  courage  to  maintain  firmly  that  the  Treaty  was 
good  and  convenient,  that  it  favored  Colombia  more  than  it  did  the 
United  States,  and  that  they  ought  to  approve  it. 

D.  After  the  great  misfortune  of  the  dismemberment  of  the  na- 
tional territory  and  the  irretrievable  loss  of  Panama,  light  was  made 
in  the  matter,  the  wave  of  madness  had  passed  away,  and,  if  the 
Treaty  were  to  be  considered  again,  there  would  not  be  many  who 
would  hold  the  same  opinion,  and  ask  the  refusal  of  the  treaty. 
The  unanimous  opinion  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  Departments  of  the 
two  coasts  is  that  a  great  error  was  committed  in  refusing  the  Treaty, 
and  that,  once  we  have  lost  such  an  important  part  of  our  territory, 
it  is  needful  and  convenient  to  settle  now  these  questions  with  the 
United  States  and  Panama,  in  a  suitable  and  honorable  manner  to 
the  Republic  of  Colombia,  without  either  accepting  or  demanding 
any  pecuniary  indemnification  which  would  stain  the  national  honor, 
but  recovering,  for  the  benefit  of  our  commerce  and  shipping,  the 
advantages  we  would  have  derived  from  the  Herran-Hay  Treaty, 
which  are  mutually  convenient  for  the  three  countries,  if  it  is  con- 
sidered that  Colombia  is  the  country  having  more  population  and 
extensive  lands  on  the  two  oceans  near  the  Canal. 

E.  We  hope  Mr.  Mendoza  Perez,  our  Minister  in  Washington,  has 
wisely  interpreted  this  feeling  and  this  national  desire,  and  has  well 
looked  after  the  material  interests  of  Colombia,  and  those,  even 
more  sacred,  of  its  future  navigation  when  the  Canal  Incomes  the 
obliged  route  of  the  human  powers,  and  important  towns  have 
sprung  on  the  Colombian  coasts  on  the  two  seas.  It  cannot  be  denied 
that,  the  Herran-Hay  Treaty  was  disapproved  through  a  patriotic 
feeling:  the  desire  of  avoiding  the  loss  of  the  sovereignty  on  the 
Canal  Zone,  but  now  that  it  is  irretrievably  lost  to  us  with  the 
approval  of  the  whole  world,  that  we  cannot  get  it  back,  and  that 
the  country  wants  the  Canal  because  it  will  benefit  Colombia  more 
than  it  will  any  other  nation,  it  is  evidently  necessary  that  Colombia 
should  arrange, — without  compromising  its  dignity,  more  valuable 
even  than  its  own  existence,  and  without  either  demanding  or  receiv- 
ing pecuniary  indemnification, — with  the  United  States  and  Panama 
in  such  a  manner  as  to  enjoy  the  benefits  of  the  Panama  Canal,  to 
which  benefits  Colombia  is  entitled. 


126  DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

F.  It  must  be  taken  into  consideration  that,  soon  after  the  Herran- 
Hay  treaty  was  refused,  many  of  the  principal  citizens  of  Cali  and 
other  towns  held  a  meeting  with  the  object  in  view  of  asking  the 
government  to  settle  this  question,  consulting  both  the  dignity  of 
the  nation  and  the  interests  of  the  Department  of  Cauca.  The  inhab- 
itants of  the  Departments  of  the  Atlantic  and  Pacific  coasts  are 
placed  in  identical  position  and  it  must  be  considered  that  it  is  not 
just  for  Bogota  and  the  inland  provinces  to  deny  them  their  rights 
and  drive  them  to  despair  which  might  bring  great  evils. 

G.  We  have  entertained  the  hope  that  our  Minister  in  Washington 
would  have  negotiated  a  treaty  with  the  United  States,  on  the  men- 
tioned manner;  but  summer  has  arrived  and  it  is  well  known  that 
by  this  time  they  close  up  official  business  in  Washington  and  do  not 
begin  them  again  until  November,  and  as  yet  we  have  not  heard 
of  our  Minister  having  negotiated  such  a  treaty.  We  have  been 
informed  that  he  has  been  cabled  to  come  home  to  hold  a  conference 
on  the  subject  and  Ave  suppose  he  is  under  way. 

H.  We  deem  it  convenient  that,  during  the  time  we  have  from  now 
to  November  next,  the  Press  throughout  the  whole  Nation  should 
write  on  this  subject,  and,  if  it  does  not  agree  with  us,  give  the  rea- 
sons they  have  to  think  otherwise,  and  let  them  advise  the  means  of 
attending  to  the  interests  of  the  Departments  of  the  coasts  and  avoid- 
ing the  lengthening  of  such  an  abnormal  situation  which  every  day 
becomes  more  and  more  painful  and  unfavorable  to  the  general 
interests  of  Colombia. 

I.  We  would  be  glad  to  see  the  Press  of  the  Departments  as  well 
as  the  foreign  press  writing  on  this  subject. 

J.  It  is  a  well  known  fact  that  all  the  Spanish  American  Repub- 
lics have  invited  the  United  States  Secretary  of  State,  Mr.  Root, 
to  visit  their  capitals  or  at  least  their  principal  ports  on  his  return 
from  the  Brazilian  Conference  and  that  he  has  expressed  his  warm 
desire  of  establishing  a  policy  of  justice  and  mutual  respect  between 
the  United  States  and  these  Republics.  It  would  be  reasonable  and 
convenient  that  Colombia  should  also  invite  him  so  that  he  might 
be  able  to  appreciate  the  importance  of  our  Departments  of  the 
coasts  and  see  for  himself  the  convenience  to  the  United  States  of 
the  progress  and  development  of  Colombia,  which  with  its  five  mil- 
lions of  inhabitants  could  be  an  important  factor  in  the  future 
development  and  conservation  of  the  Panama  Canal. 


Note. — A  series  of  leading  articles  can  be  written  on  the  above 
subject  developing  them  in  different  form  and  words  as  this  memo- 
randum will  be  sent  to  several  persons  with  the  same  object. 

Note. — With  reference  to  the  interest  that  the  United  States  may 
have  in  finishing  in  an  honorable  manner  for  Colombia  the  questions 
pending  with  Panama  there  are  besides  the  above  reasons  the  follow- 
ing ones: 

(a)  Bearing  in  mind  the  increasing  development  of  the  great  Re- 
public of  the  North  and  the  possible  future  conflicts  with  Asia  and 
Europe  and  even  with  South  American  countries,  the  situation  of 
Colombia  with  her  extensive  lands  on  both  coasts  and  her  good 
harbors,  such  as  Buenaventura  and  Cartagena,  with  the  abundance 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTOKY    OF    THE    PANAMA   CANAL.  127 

of  rich  coal  mines,  she  will  be  of  great  importance  to  the  United 
States,  and  this  country  ought  to  favor  and  forward  the  development 
of  the  great  wealth  of  Colombia  and  make  of  her  a  firm  and  constant 
friend. 

(b)  From  a  commercial  point  of  view  the  United  States  would 
find  in  Colombia  a  wide  field  to  invest  capital  and  give  employment 
to  her  citizens ;  in  the  Magdalena  valley  for  instance,  rubber  planta- 
tions can  be  established  as  rich  as  those  on  the  borders  of  the  Amazon 
river,  and  as  to  mineral  wealth,  it  is  as  abundant  on  the  bed  of  the 
liver  Porce,  in  Antioquia,  in  the  Province  of  Marmato,  etc.,  etc.,  as 
in  the  rich  mines  of  the  Transvaal,  and  it  only  wants  railways  to 
bring  the  necessary  machinery  to  work  the  mines.  Colombia  can 
furnish  to  the  United  States  all  the  tropical  products  she  may  want. 

(c)  It  is  evident  that  the  interests  of  the  United  States,  Panama, 
and  Colombia  are  closely  connected  and  that  the  concessions  that 
Colombia  could  obtain  on  the  lines  of  the  Herran-Hay  Treaty  would 
be  more  than  compensated  to  the  United  States  and  Panama  having 
in  this  country  a  firm  ally  and  uniting  their  strength  to  the  common 
welfare  of  the  three  countries. 


[Translation  of  an  important  interview  in  the  Correo  Nacional,  one  of  the  principal 
newspapers  of  Colombia  and  the  leading  Government  organ,  with  Dr.  Ignacio  Palau, 
one  of  the  most  prominent  and  influential  men  of  the  Republic  and  the  editor  and 
proprietor  of  the  Correo  del  Cauca.] 

After  discussing  the  conditions  of  material  and  agricultural  devel- 
opment in  the  Cauca,  one  of  the  richest  provinces  of  Colombia  and 
which  borders  on  the  Pacific  Ocean  and  consequently  has  intimate 
relations  with  Panama,  Dr.  Ignacio  Palau  was  asked  by  the  reporter 
the  following  question : 

What  is  the  opinion  in  Cauca  on  the  Panama  question? 

To  this  Dr.  Palau  replied  as  follows : 

The  bad  economic  condition  in  Cauca  will  be  improved  by  a  dignified  and 
satisfactory  arrangement  of  the  Panama  question,  which  neither  can  or  ought 
to  be  held  in  indefinite  suspension. 

Many  and  grave  are  the  injuries  caused  to  the  commerce  of  Cauca  by  the 
delay  of  this  arrangement,  not  only  for  the  obstacles  which  the  passage  of  the 
Isthmus  presents  in  our  relations  with  the  United  States  and  Europe,  but  also 
for  the  market  itself  of  Panama,  which  is  important  for  the  products  of  Cauca. 
For  this  reason  the  municipalities  of  Cali  and  Palmira,  as  well  as  thousands  of 
citizens,  at  the  time  petitioned  the  Colombian  Congress  to  approve  the  Herran- 
Hay  treaty,  and.  later  on,  a  large  number  of  the  principal  inhabitants  of  Cali 
held  the  opinion  that  the  country  should  arrive  at  an  agreement  by  which  it 
could  obtain  all  the  commercial  advantages  possible,  such  as  facilities  of 
transit  and  trade,  giving  up  entire'y  the  idea  of  pecuniary  indemnity  on  account 
of  such  being  undignified  for  Colombia,  in  view  of  what  had  previously  occurred. 

The  same  identical  advantages  which  would  come  to  the  Departments  of 
Cauca  and  Narino  by  an  arrangement  of  the  Panama  question  would  apply  also 
to  the  departments  of  the  Atlantic  coast. 

In  Cauca,  and  I  think  also  along  the  Atlantic  coast,  it  was  anxiously  hoped 
that  the  mission  of  Messrs.  Mendoza  Perez  and  Cortes,  whom  our  Government 
sent  to  Washington,  would  conclude,  as  above  described,  this  question,  which  is 
one  of  life  and  death  for  us.  It  is  known  that  Mr.  Cortes  retired  from  the 
mission  and  that  it  has  remained  entirely  in  charge  of  Mr.  Mendoza  Perez.  As 
is  well  known,  from  now  on  closes  all  official  negotiations  in  Washington,  and 
that  nothing  definite  will  be  done  there  until  the  month  of  November,  in  which 
month  there  will  begin  the  consideration  of  these  affairs  in  that  capital. 


128  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA  CANAL. 

If  here  in  Bogota  great  importance  is  not  given  to  settling  the  question  of 
Panama,  it  does  not  follow  that  the  same  opinion  prevails  in  our  population 
of  the  coast  of  both  seas,  because  for  them  it  is  an  affair  of  life  and  death,  and 
it  is  not  prudent  to  exasperate  the  people  of  that  section. 


Secretary  Root  to  Minister  Barrett. 

[Telegram.] 

Department  or  State, 

Washington,  June  1£,  1906. 
There  is  no  movement   whatever  in  Congress  on  the  subject  of 
arbitration,  and  no  change  of  position  taken  in  my  note  of  February 
10.     Mendoza  may  have  been  talking  with  some  malcontent  in  Con- 
gress. 

Root, 


Colombian  Charge  to  Secretary  Root. 

[Translation.! 

Legation  of  Colombia, 
Washington,  D.  C,  July  2,  1906. 
Sir:  Referring  to  the  interview  which  I  had  the  honor  to  have 
with  you  this  morning,  and  in  compliance  with  an  order  by  cable 
from  my  Government,  I  hereby  send  you  a  copy  of  the  cable  to  which 
I  referred,  thus  fulfilling  the  wishes  expressed  by  you. 
The  cable  is  as  follows : 

Bogota,  June  SO,  1906. 
Colombian  Legation,  Washington: 

Notify  the  Department  of  State  that  a  new  treaty  concerning  the  Panama 
matters  has  been  begun  here  with  Minister  Barrett,  on  a  basis  of  mutual 
respect  and  honor,  the  treaty  to  be  completed  next  fall.  Cortes  has  been 
appointed  minister  to  continue  negotiations. 

Vasquez  Cobo. 

With  sentiments  of  highest  consideration  and  regard.  I  am,  Mr. 
Secretary, 


Your  obedient  servant. 


Eduardo  Perez  Triana, 
Charge  cV  Affaires  ad  interim. 


Secretary  Root  to  Minister  Barrett. 

No.  27.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  July  2,  1906. 

Sir  :  I  have  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  confidential  dis- 
patch of  May  23  last,  concerning  the  plan  for  the  settlement  of  all 
difficulties  between  the  United  States  and  Colombia  with  respect  to 
Panama,  which  President  Reyes  submitted  to  you  during  the  audi- 
ence which  you  had  with  him  on  the  date  above  mentioned. 

The  arrangement  under  which  you  are  to  meet  me  at  Guayaquil 
and  proceed  with  me  to  Cartagena  renders  it  unnecessary  to  add,  in 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OP   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  129 

the  meantime,  anything-  on  this  subject  to  what  is  contained  in 
the  telegraphic  messages  which  have  already  passed  between  us 
further  than  this : 

It  is  evident  that  the  negotiations  will  involve  a  very  thorough 
knowledge  of  the  debt  of  Colombia,  its  origin  and  history,  and  the 
relations  of  Panama  to  each  class  of  debts.    The  preparation  of  this 
material  should  be  begun  immediately  and  prosecuted  diligently. 
I  am.  sir.  etc., 

Ei.ihu  Root. 


[Telegram — Paraphrase.] 

American  Legation, 
Bogota,  July  14,  1906. 
Reports  action  taken  on  that  clay  by  National  Chamber  of  Commerce, 
which  had  assembled  at  Bogota,  and  which  represented  all  parts  of 
Colombia  in  unanimously  passing  a  resolution  introduced  by  the 
delegates  of  the  six  Pacific  and  Atlantic  Provinces  and  approved 
by  the  Colombian  Government  favoring  negotiations  with  the  United 
States  and  Panama  as  begun  by  President  Reyes  and  Minister  Bar- 
rett. Telegram  adds  that  Colombian  minister  for  foreign  affairs  has 
announced  that  Colombia  waives  demand  for  money  indemnity  or 
arbitration. 


The  annexed  paper  was  received  by  Minister  Barrett  from  Mr. 
Vasquez  Cobo,  the  minister  of  foreign  affairs  of  Colombia,  whose  signa- 
ture it  bears,  and  was  handed  to  me  at  Panama  September  20,  190G. 
It  was  produced  by  me  at  an  interview  between  Mr.  Barrett,  Mr. 
Vasquez  Cobo,  and  myself,  at  Cartagena,  Colombia,  on  the  24th  of 
September,  1906,  and  was  read,  paragraph  by  paragraph,  and  made 
the  subject  of  discussion  between  us  as  being  the  basis  for  a  treaty 
proposed  by  Colombia. 

Elihlt  Root. 


Confiden  tial  me  mo  randu  n  1 . 

In  the  first  place,  a  treaty  similar  to  the  treaty  of  1846  will  be 
celebrated  with  the  United  States — a  treaty  of  peace,  amity,  com- 
merce, and  navigation. 

Once  the  treaty  with  the  United  States  has  been  celebrated,  a  treaty 
will  be  celebrated  with  Panama,  and  to  this  end  Panama  will  send 
a  confidential  agent  to  Bogota  to  negotiate  such  a  treaty. 

BASIS  FOR  A  TREATY  WITH  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

1.  The  Government  of  Colombia  will  have  at  all  times  the  right  to 
convey  through  the  canal  its  ships,  troops,  and  materials  for  war, 
even  in  the  case  of  an  international  war  between  Colombia  and  an- 
other country,  without  paying  any  duty  to  the  United  States. 

While  the  interoceanic  canal  is  in  construction  Colombia  will  have 
the  right  to  transport  on  the  railway  between  Ancon  and  Cristobal. 
or  any  other  railway  substituting  that  one.  her  troops,  ammunitions, 

42112— S.  Doc  474,  63-2 9 


130  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL. 

and  materials  for  war  at  all  times,  even  in  the  case  of  an  international 
war  between  Colombia  and  any  other  country,  under  the  same  con- 
ditions that  this  service  is  rendered  to  the  United  States. 

The  national  employees  transmitting  through  the  Isthmus  will  be 
entitled  to  a  free  passage  in  the  railway. 

2.  Colombian  products,  such  as  provisions,  cattle,  etc.,  will  enter  free 
of  any  duty  (except  that  paid  by  U.  S.  products 1)  to  the  Canal  Zone, 
where  they  can  be  sold,  paying  only  the  same  duties  paid  by  articles 
brought  from  the  United  States. 

3.  Correspondence  and  parcel  mails  will  have  a  free  passage 
through  the  Canal  Zone  and  through  the  post  offices  of  Ancon  and 
Cristobal,  paying  only  such  duties  as  those  paid  by  the  United  States 
mails. 

4.  Colombian  products  passing  through  the  Isthmus  railway  from 
and  to  Colombian  ports  will  pay  a  small  duty,  inferior  or  at  most 
equal  to  the  duty  that  Colombia  used  to  pay  before  to  the  railway 
for  the  same  service. 

Sea  salt  exclusively  produced  in  Colombia  will  pass  through  the 
railway  free  of  charge  whenever  the  Government  of  Colombia  sends 
it,  duly  certified,  from  the  Atlantic  coasts  to  any  Colombian  port  on 
the  Pacific  coast.    Colombia  will  only  pay  shipment. 

5.  There  will  be  a  differential  tariff  favorable  to  Colombia,  similar 
to  that  existing  with  Cuba,  for  Colombian  molasses  and  sugar  enter- 
ing into  the  United  States. 


The  United  States  will  interpose  its  good  offices  in  the  arrangement 
between  Colombia  and  Panama,  Panama  having  to  pay  in  a  direct 
manner  to  Colombia  its  corresponding  share  of  the  foreign  debt  and 
the  rights  that  Colombia  claims  for  the  sale  made  by  Panama  to  the 
United  States  of  the  interoceanic  railway  and  other  rights  that 
Columbia  has  in  the  zone  and  materials  of  the  canal.  There  will  be 
a  free  commerce  between  Colombia  and  Panama  for  national 
products. 

A.  Vasquez  Cobo. 

(Memorandum. — This  paper  was  handed  to  me  by  Mr.  Enrico 
Cortes,  minister  of  Colombia,  on  Thursday,  November  8,  1906.) 

With  reference  to  that  part  of  the  paper  relating  to  the  Panama 
debt,  etc.,  I  said  to  Mr.  Cortes  that  Mr.  Vasquez  Cobo  was  mistaken 
in  supposing  that  in  the  interview  with  him  I  had  expressed  any 
opinion  whatever  as  to  the  application  of  the  theory  of  the  Argentine 
jurist,  Carlos  Calvo,  to  the  case  under  consideration,  or  as  to  the 
amount  of  $5,000,000  being  the  proper  share  for  Panama  to  pay.  I 
had  already  said  that  for  the  discussion  of  those  questions  a  more 
specific  statement  of  the  claims  of  Colombia  would-be  necessary,  and 
I  carefully  refrained  from  either  assent  or  dissent,  or  expressing  any 
opinion,  either  -as  to  the  principle  to  be  applied,  or  as  to  the  amount 
to  be  considered,  for  the  reason  that  I  was  not  sufficiently  informed 
upon  the  facts  to  form  such  an  opinion. 

November  8,  1906. 

E.R. 
[Elihu  Root] 

1  Inserted   in  pencil. 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  131 

[Confidential.] 
[Copy  of  Gen.  Vasquez  Cobo's  statement  to  Mr.  Cortes.] 

Statement  of  general  terms  agreed  upon  confidentially  at  Carta- 
gena on  September  24,  1906,  between  Mr.  Minister  Root  and  Gen. 
Vasquez  Cobo,  acting  as  Colombian  minister  of  foreign  affairs,  for 
a  treaty  between  Colombia  and  the  United  States. 


Says  the  memorandum : 

In  the  first  place  a  treaty  similar  to  the  treaty  of  184G  will  be  celebrated 
with  the  United  States.     A  treaty  of  peace,  amity,  commerce,  and  navigation. 

Once  the  treaty  with  the  United  States  has  been  celebrated,  a  treaty  will  be 
celebrated  with  Panama,  and  to  this  end  Panama  will  send  a  confidential  agent 
to  Bogota  to  negotiate  such  treaty. 


While  the  negotiations  for  these  treaties  are  in  course  in  Washing- 
ton, where  they  will  take  place,  Panama  shall  send  a  confidential 
agent  to  Bogota,  provided  the  Government  of  Colombia  signifies  to 
Panama  their  acquiescence  to  receive  him  in  the  above-mentioned 
capacity.  It  is  understood,  however,  that  the  said  confidential  agent 
shall  not  negotiate  independently  of  the  respective  ministers  who 
are  to  carry  on  this  business  in  Washington. 

The  opportunity  or  convenience  of  sending  the  above-mentioned 
agent  to  Bogota  is  left  to  the  decision  of  the  Colombian  minister  in 
Washington. 

Says  the  confidential  memorandum: 

First.  The  Government  of  Colombia  will  have  at  all  times  the  right  to  con- 
vey through  the  canal  its  ships,  troops,  and  materials  for  war,  even  in  the  case 
of  an  international  war  between  Colombia  and  another  country,  without  paying 
any  duty  to  the  United  States. 

While  the  interoceanic  canal  is  in  construction,  Colombia  will  have  the  right 
to  transport  on  the  railway  between  Ancon  and  Cristobal,  or  on  any  other  rail- 
way substituting  that  one,  her  troops,  ammunitions,  are  materials  for  war,  at 
all  times,  even  in  the  case  of  an  international  war  between  Colombia  and  any 
other  country,  under  the  same  conditions  that  this  service  is  rendered  to  the 
United  States. 

The  national  employees  transiting  through  the  Isthmus  will  be  entitled  to 
a  free  passage  in  the  railway. 


Mr.  Root  thinks  that  the  above  clause  No.  1  maybe  inserted  in 
the  treaty,  but  it  should  be  necessary  to  treat  the  point  between  the 
United  Sates  and  England  on  account  of  the  stipulations  of  the 
Hay-Pauncefote  treaty  between  the  two  Nations.  Mr.  Root  believes 
that  England  will  agree  to  this  clause  being  stipulated  between 
Colombia  and  United  States. 

Mr.  Root  will  also  see  Mr.  Taft,  War  Minister,  on  the  matter,  but 
thinks  there  is  no  reason  to  raise  obstacles. 

After  writing  the  above,  it  was  translated  and  read  to  Mr.  Root, 
who  agrees  to  its  wording.  In  consequence,  the  above  is  to  be  con- 
sidered as  Mr.  Roofs  genuine  opinion. 


Says  the  memorandum : 

Second.  Colombian  poducts,  such  as  provisions,  cattle,  etc..  will  enter,  free 
of  any  duty,  to  the  Canal  Zone,  where  they  can  be  sold,  paying  only  the  same 
duties  paid  by  articles  brought  from  the  United  States. 


132  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE    PANAMA   CANAL. 

This  clause  was  altered  as  below.  Mr.  Root  mentions  the  interven- 
tion of  the  American  commissariat,  who  is  charged  to  supply  pro- 
visions for  the  laborers  in  the  canal.    It  was  agreed  as  follows:' 

Second.  Colombian  products,  such  ;is  provisions,  cattle,  etc.,  will  enter  free 
of  any  special  duty  to  the  Canal  Zone,  with  the  exception  of  the  duties  paid  by 
similar  American  products  in  equal  conditions. 

The  Colombian  laborers  employed  in  the  zone,  who  may  desire  that  their  own 
families  supply  them  with  provisions  for  their  personal  use.  shall  declare  them 
before  the  commissariat  in  order  to  obtain  a  previous  permit  of  entry,  and  will 
enter  free  of  any  duty,  provided  it  should  he  a  bona  fide  operation,  to  the  dis- 
cretion of  the  commissariat. 


The  above  clause  refers  to  provisions  that  may  be  furnished  by 
their  families  to  laborers  who  are  natives  of  the  Colombian  coasts. 
This  clause  is  intended  to  give  them  opportunity  for  saving  money. 
The  bona  fide  clause  is  intended  to  prevent  fraud. 


Says  the  memorandum: 

Third.  Mails  will  have  a  free  passage  through  the  Canal  Zone  and  through 
the  post  office  of  Ancon  and  Cristobal,  paying  only  such  duties  as  those  paid  by 
the  United  States  mails. 


In  accordance  with  Mr.  Root,  this  clause  remains  subject  to  the 
same  proviso  and  remarks  as  the  No.  1. 

Says  the  memorandum : 

Fourth.  Colombian  products,  passing  through  the  Isthmus  Railway  from  and 
to  Colombian  ports,  will  pay  a  small  duty,  inferior,  or  at  most  equal  to.  the  duty 
that  Colombia  used  to  pay  before  to  the  railway  for  the  same  service. 

Sea  salt,  exclusively  produced  in  Colombia,  will  pass  through  the  railway 
free  of  charge  whenever  the  Government  of  Colombia  sends  it.  duly  certified, 
from  the  Atlantic  coasts  to  any  Colombian  port  on  the  Pacific  coast.  Colombia 
will  only  pay  shipment. 

Mr.  Root  believes  this  clause  may  be  accepted,  but  for  the  same 
reasons  it  remains  subject  to  the  same  proviso  and  remarks  as  clause 

No.  1. 

Says  the  memorandum: 

Fifth.  There  will  be  a  differential  tariff  favorable  to  Colombia  similar  to 
that  existing  with  Cuba,  for  Colombian  molasses  and  sugar,  entering  into  the 
United  States. 

Mr.  Root  thinks  it  is  impossible  to  agree  to  any  differential  tariff. 
It  will  meet  with  great  opposition  in  the  United  States  and  will  be 
rejected  by  the  Senate.  Mr.  Root  fears  the  whole  treaty  might  be 
rejected  on  account  of  this  clause. 

Says  the  memorandum : 

The  United  States  will  interpose  its  good  offices  in  the  arrangement  between 
Colombia  and  Panama— Panama  having  to  pay  in  a  direct  manner  to  Colombia 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL.  133 

its  corresponding  share  of  the  foreign  debt  and  the  rights  that  Colombia  claims 
for  the  sale  made  by  Panama  to  the  United  States  of  the  interoceanic  rail- 
way— and  other  rights  that  Colombia  has  in  the  zone  and  materials  of  the 
canal.  There  will  be  a  free  commerce  between  Colombia  and  Panama  for 
national  products. 

On  the  above  clause  of  the  memorandum,  Gen.  Vasquez  Cobo 
writes  as  follows: 

About  the  treaty  with  Panama  it  was  agreed  that  the  United  States  will 
interpose  its  good  offices  for  the  arrangement  between  Colombia  and  Panama. 
The  treaty  with  Piina'ina  will  be  celebrated  in  Washington.  The  United  States 
will  exercise  its  good  offices  for  a  special  customs  tariff  between  Colombia  and 
Panama  without  implying,  however,  any  imposition  from  the  United  States  on 
Panama. 


PANAMA   DEBT. 

Respecting  the  payment  to  be  made  to  Colombia  by  Panama  as 
her  share  in  the  foreign  debt  of  Colombia  and  for  the  value  of  the 
Panama  Railroad  that  Colombia  claims  as  her  own,  everything  will 
be  settled  in  Washington. 


I  (V.  Cobo)  spoke  to  Mr.  Root  of  Colombia's  labors  to  benefit  the 
Isthmus,  the  considerable  amount  of  expenses  incurred  to  keep  up 
a  respectable  army  in  Panama;  the  victory  obtained  by  Colombia 
in  succeeding  to  have  the  Panama  route  selected  for  the  canal,  a 
victoiy  of  which  Panama  has  become  the  sole  beneficiary ;  her  efforts 
in  the  intricate  boundary  question  with  Costa  Rica  finally  audited  in 
favor  of  Colombia,  all  to  the  benefit  of  Panama  in  the  end.  In  this 
action  it  must  be  understood  that  the  extensive  region  conceded  to 
Colombia  was  recognized,  not  on  account  of  local  boundaries  with 
the  State  of  Panama,  but  on  the  lines  of  the  general  boundaries  of 
the  Virreinato  de  Nueva  Granada. 

Mr.  Root  said  that  the  Panamenos  mention  payment  of  the  debt 
on  the  basis  of  population.  I  objected,  founded  on  the  theory  of  the 
Argentine  jurist,  Carlos  Calvo,  which  Mr.  Root  considered  acceptable 
and  appropriate  to  this  particular  case.  He  (Mr.  Root)  mentioned 
the  amount  of  the  Colombian  debt,  and  when  I  mentioned  $5,000,000 
as  a  proper  share  for  Panama,  he  did  not  appear  to  consider  it 
exaggerated. 


I  heard  in  Cartagena  that  Colombian  laborers  on  the  zone  are  paid 
lower  wages  than  other  nationalities.  He  seemed  surprised  and  said 
it  should  be  determined  that  Colombian  laborers  should  be  paid  on 
the  same  basis  as  other  nationalities,  all  circumstances  being  equal. 


THE   CHERRY   BUSINESS. 

I  spoke  to  Mr.  Root  before  Mr.  Barrett  on  this  matter.     Neither 
of  the  two  seemed  to  remember  details.    I  explained  the  whole  thing, 


134  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL. 

adding  that  the  railway  was  being  worked  now  by  an  American 
company,  Mason  &  Co. 

Mr.  Root  said  he  would  instruct  Mr.  Barrett  to  treat  the  point 
with  the  creditors,  and  that  he  would  endeavor  to  bring  them  to 
accept  payment  in  foreign  bonds  (valis  de  estrangeros) ,  as  pro- 
posed by  the  Government. 

I  gather  that  Mr.  Root  is  very  favorably  disposed  toward  us,  as 
may  be  perceived  by  the  speech  he  delivered  in  Cartagena. 


( 'onfidential  memorandum  for  the  consideration  of  Mr.  Root  and  Mr. 
Buchanan  on  the  subject  of  pending  arrangements  with  Panama 
and  the  United  Slates. 

Legacion  de  Colombia, 

Washington,  January  3,  1907. 

The  most  important  items  between  Panama  and  Colombia  have 
been  the  subject  of  my  previous  expose  de  motif,  which  I  had  the 
honor  to  send  you  some  time  ago.  There  are  other  points  connected 
also  with  the  secession  of  Panama  and  the  incidents  connected  with 
it  previous  and  posterior  to  it.  These  incidents  require  a  rearrange- 
ment of  our  relations  with  the  United  States,  on  the  basis  of  certain 
stipulations,  which  have  been  presented  to  Mr.  Root  by  the  minister 
of  foreign  affairs  in  Cartagena.  The  whole  train  of  stipulations  be- 
tween the  three  entities  interested  are  so  closely  interdependent  that 
I  have  dwelt  on  the  idea  of  celebrating  a  tripartite  treaty,  embodying 
those  stipulations  referring  to  the  three  contracting  parties  which 
bear  on  the  secession  of  Panama.  I  venture  to  suggest  this  idea 
for  your  consideration,  as  I  believe  it  will  have  great  weight  on  the 
final  approval  of  the  treaty  by  Panama  and  Colombia,  the  United 
States  being  a  party  to  it. 

Following,  I  beg  to  mention  the  points  that  should  be  included  in 
the  tripartite  treaty,  referring  to  Panama  and  Colombia.  I  leave 
out  for  further  consideration  all  matters  relating  to  commerce, 
navigation,  etc.,  which  may  be  the  subject  of  long  discussion.  I  be- 
lieve that  the  urgent  point  for  us  all  is  to  bring  about  an  arrange- 
ment on  the  vital  points,  the  recognition  of  the  independence  of 
Panama,  and  our  position  toward  the  United  States. 

Should  this  idea  of  a  tripartite  treaty  be  accepted,  I  would  present 
a  memorandum  on  this  subject,  stating  the  stipulations  that,  in  my 
opinion,  should  be  included  in  it,  referring  to  our  relations  with  the 
United  States.  Among  these  I  will  mention  the  matter  relating  to 
the  islands  of  San  Luis  and  San  Andreas  de  Providencia,  which  I 
have  reason  to  believe  might  be  favorably  considered  by  the  United 
States. 

POINTS  TO  BE  INCLUDED   IN    THE   ARRANGEMENT   WITH    PANAMA. 

A.  Boundaries  between  Colombia  and  Panama. 

We  take  it  that  there  is  no  other  authority  to  follow  in  this  mat- 
ter than  the  Colombian  law  of  June  9,  1855,  which  fixed  the  line  of 
boundaries  between  the  State  of  Cauca  and  the  State  of  Panama, 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  135 

which  is  also  included  in  the  official  edition  of  the  Geography  of 
T.  C.  de  Mosquera,  published  in  London,  1866,  as  follows : 

From  the  Atlantic,  a  line  from  Cape  Tiburon  8°  41'  north  latitude,  3°  8' 
west  longitude  from  Bogota  to  tne  head  of  the  Rio  de  la  Miel,  and  following 
the  Cordillera  by  the  hill  of  Gandi  to  Sierra  de  Chugargun  and  Sierra  de  Mali, 
going  down  by  the  hill  of  Nique  to  the  heights  of  Aspave  and  thence  to  the 
Pacific,  between  Cocalito  and  La  Ardita ;  7°  12'  north  latitude,  3°  37'  west 
longitude  from  Bogota. 

This  line  we  are  ready  to  accept. 

B.  We  are  perfectly  willing  and  anxious  to  enter  into  an  arrange- 
ment by  which  the  citizens  of  both  countries  should  enjoy  civil  and 
political  rights  in  each  of  them  as  the  natives.  Likewise  we  are 
ready  to  enter  into  an  arrangement  facilitating  the  declaration  of 
nationality  of  the  citizens  of  the  two  countries  residing  in  the  other. 
There  will  be  no  difficulty  on  this  matter,  which  we  consider  advan- 
tageous for  the  close  union  of  the  two  countries. 

C.  We  believe  that  a  stipulation  should  be  mentioned  in  the 
treaty  by  which  Panama  declares,  in  accordance  with  her  action 
before  the  French  tribunals,  that  she  does  not  claim  any  rights  to 
the  property  of  50,000  new  Panama  Canal  shares  granted  to  Colom- 
bia by  the  company  in  payment  of  the  extension  granted  to  it  for 
the  time  to  finish  the  canal. 

As  I  have  mentioned  above,  all  the  matters  relating  to  commerce, 
navigation,  postal  extradition,  etc.,  which  require  a  good  many 
details,  will  be  a  matter  of  arrangement  between  Colombia  and 
Panama,  once  the  tripartite  treaty,  as  above  mentioned,  is  duly 
signed. 

Colombian  Minister  to  Mr.  Buchanan. 

Legation  of  Colombia, 
Washington,  D.  C,  March  4,  1907. 

My  Dear  Mr.  Buchanan  :  I  beg  to  inclose  two  memorandums  re- 
lating, the  one  to  our  question  with  Panama,  and  the  other  to  our 
agreement  with  the  United  States.  They  embody  the  totality  of 
the  points  at  issue  and  may  be  considered  as  our  final  decision  espe- 
cially in  regard  to  the  amount  to  be  paid  by  Panama. 

I  beg  of  you  to  consider  them  carefully,  giving  particular  attention 
to  my  argument  in  Clause  VIII  of  the  Panama  memorandum,  by 
which  I  emphasize  the  position  assumed — that  is  to  say,  that  I  re- 
frain from  dilating  on  each  of  the  four  points,  throwing  on  the  gen- 
eral consideration  of  justice  and  fair  dealing  whatever  may  be 
wanting  in  strength  in  each  particular  point. 

Mr.  Root  mentioned  that  he  should  like  to  have  a  concrete  state- 
ment of  the  whole  of  our  demands;  my  memorandums  contain  it.  and 
I  hope  they  will  receive  his  own  and  the  President's  due  considera- 
tion. 

As  far  as  I  can  make  out  your  opinion  is  favorable  to  my  point  of 
view  as  expressed  in  the  said  memorandums.  I  entertain  the  hope 
therefore  that  they  will  form  the  basis  of  the  action  to  be  taken  by 
the  American  Government  toward  Panama,  and  that  the  matter  will 
arrive  at  a  speedy  termination. 

If  Mr.  Eoot  and  yourself  still  consider  advisable  the  intervention 
of  Mr.  Cromwell,  I  expect  that  the  matter  will  be  taken  up  in  earnest 


136  DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF    THE   PAX  AM  A   CANAL. 

on  hi*  arrival  from  Europe.  I  see  by  the  newspapers  that  Panama 
will  send  Mr.  Arango  as  envoy  extraordinary  and  minister  plenipo- 
tentiary, with  full  power  to  act  in  accordance  with  Mr.  Obaldia  on 
the  matter.  The  newspapers  mention  under  date  of  the  2d  instant 
from  Panama,  that  Mr.  Arango  will  start  next  month.  As  his 
presence  here  might  avoid  the  necessity  of  Mr.  Cromwell's  journey 
to  Panama,  I  venture  to  suggest  that  a  cable  should  be  sent  to 
Panama  urging  the  departure  of  Mr.  Arango  as  soon  as  possible, 
thereby  gaining  time. 

This  is  an  important  matter  as  the  Colombian  National  Assembly 
will  meet  in  April  next,  and  it  will  be  very  desirable  that  the  treaty 
should  reach  Bogota  before  the  assembly  adjourns. 

Hoping  that  you  will  give  your  very  kind  consideration  to  this 
matter,  and  with  renewed  assurance  of  my  highest  esteem.  I  remain, 
sir, 

Your  obedient  servant, 

Enrique  Cortes. 

Hon.  William  I.  Buchanan, 

Washington. 

[Inclosure  1.] 

Memorandum  relating  to  a  treaty  between  Colombia  and  the  United 

States. 

I. 

Between  Colombia  and  the  United  States  there  are  two  subjects  for 
the  celebration  of  a  treaty.  The  first  of  them  is  the  scope  covered 
by  the  treaty  of  December,  1846,  which  must  be  abrogated  and  re- 
placed by  a  similar  one  comprising  only  that  part  of  it  which  does 
not  refer  to  matters  connected  with  the  Isthmus  of  Panama  and  the 
guaranty  of  integrity  of  our  nationality.  The  second  subject  refers 
to  the  stipulations  which  have  been  under  examination  and  exchange 
of  ideas  between  the  two  countries,  as  mentioned  in  the  Cartagena 
memorandum  (a  copy  of  which  is  in  the  hands  of  Mr.  Eoot),  and  all 
other  points  as  derived  from  the  separation  of  Panama. 

In  case  the  celebration  of  a  tripartite  treaty  is  considered  feasible, 
as  I  believe  it  should,  the  second  subject  might  properly  be  inserted 
in  the  treaty  with  Panama  as  developed  in  my  memorandum  on  the 
Panama  treaty  of  even  date.  If  the  tripartite  treaty  is  abandoned, 
the  whole  matter  might  be  embodied  in  a  single  instrument.  I  be- 
lieve, however,  that  it  will  be  rather  awkward  to  properly  fit  in  a 
general  treaty  with  the  United  States  many  of  the  clauses  pertaining 
to  the  second  subject,  especially  if  there  are  any  respecting  guaranty 
or  assumption  of  payment  by  and  through  the  United  States  of  a 
part  of  the  sum  we  claim  from  Panama.  In  a  tripartite  treaty,  the 
intervention  of  the  United  States  would  appear  as  a  natural  develop- 
ment of  the  double  character  that  they  would  assume  in  the  instru- 
ment; on  the  one  side  as  protectors  of  Panama,  on  the  other,  as  sin- 
cere friends  of  Colombia. 

Assuming  that  we  may  carry  on  the  idea  of  a  tripartite  treaty,  1 
beg  to  state  the  stipulations  which  would  appear  in  it  referring  to  the 
United  States  and  Colombia. 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  137 

I  would  refrain  from  argument,  as  the  matter  seems  to  have  been 
accepted  on  principle  by  the  United  States,  it  remaining  still  in 
doubt  the  consent  of  Great  Britain  to  some  of  its  clauses,  a  matter 
which  Mr.  Root  thinks  will  offer  no  difficulty. 

II. 

First.  The  Government  of  Colombia  will  have  at  all  times  the 
right  to  convey  through  the  canal  its  ships,  troops,  and  materials  for 
war,  even  in  the  case  of  an  international  war  between  Colombia  and 
another  country,  without  paying  any  duty  to  the  United  States. 

While  the  interoceanic  canal  is  in  construction,  Colombia  will  have 
the  right  to  transport  on  the  railway  between  Ancon  and  Cristobal, 
or  any  other  railway  substituting  that  one,  her  troops,  ammunitions, 
and  materials  for  war,  at  all  times,  even  in  the  case  of  an  interna- 
tional war  between  Colombia  and  any  other  country,  under  the  same 
conditions  that  this  service  is  rendered  to  the  United  States. 

The  Colombian  national  employees  transmitting  through  the 
Isthmus  will  be  entitled  to  a  free  passage  in  the  railway. 

The  above  stipulations  will  be  suspended  in  case  of,  and  during  a 
state  of,  war  between  the  Republic  of  Colombia  and  either  of  the 
other  two  high  contracting  parties,  the  United  States  and  the  Repub- 
lic of  Panama. 

III. 

Second.  National  Colombian  provisions  and  other  national  prod- 
ucts such  as  mentioned  in  paragraph  No.  XIII  of  my  memorandum 
of  even  date  respecting  the  Panama  treaty,  will  enter  free  of  any 
special  duty  to  the  Canal  Zone,  with  the  exception  of  the  duties  paid 
by  similar  American  products  in  equal  conditions. 

The  Colombian  laborers  employed  in  the  zone,  who  may  desire  that 
their  own  families  supply  them  with  provisions  for  their  own  per- 
sonal use,  shall  declare  them  before  the  commissariat  in  order  to 
obtain  a  previous  permit  of  entry,  and  will  enter  free  of  any  duty, 
provided  it  should  be  a  bona  fide  operation  to  the  discretion  of  the 
commissariat. 

IV. 

Third.  All  mail  matter  and  post  parcels  will  have  a  free  passage 
through  the  Panama  Railway  and  Canal  Zone,  and  through  the  post 
office  of  Ancon  and  Cristobal,  paying  only  such  duties  as  those  paid 
bv  the  United  States'  mails. 

V. 

Fourth.  Colombian  products  and  goods  of  any  kind  passing  through 
the  Panama  Railway,  or  any  other  connecting  the  two  oceans  within 
the  Canal  Zone,  and  destined  to  or  coming  from  any  Colombian  port. 
will  pay  the  same  freight  as  was  charged  to  Colombian  goods  in  the 
same  position  by  the  Panama  Railway  up  to  the  2d  of  November, 
1903.  When  the  said  products  and  goods  from  and  to  the  same  desti- 
nation are  transported  through  the  Panama  Interoceanic  Canal,  the 
charges  for  said  transportation  will  he  only  the  actual  cost  of  trans- 
portation from  one  ocean  to  another  deducting  from   the  general 


138  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

tariff  whatever  amount  that  may  represent  in  it,  interest  on  the  capi- 
tal, profit,  or  contingent  depreciation,  or  losses  in  that  transporting 
vehicles.  When  the  canal  should  be  open  to  the  commerce  a  special 
agreement  on  the  subject  fixing  the  actual  rates  to  be  charged  as 
above,  will  be  concluded  by  a  commission  of  two  persons  appointed 
one  by  each  Government.  On  Colombian  produced  salt,  sent  per  ac- 
count of  the  Government  from  any  Colombian  port  on  the  Atlantic 
to  any  Colombian  port  on  the  Pacific  Ocean,  the  above  charges  shall 
be  diminished  50  per  cent. 

VI. 

Fifth.  The  Government  of  the  United  States  shall  instruct  the  Canal 
Zone  commissionaires,  or  the  respective  authorities  on  the  Canal 
Zone,  to  avoid  all  unfavorable  discrimination  on  salaries  paid  to 
Colombian  laborers  or  employees  in  the  canal  work,  in  such  a  way 
that  in  equal  circumstances,  Colombian  laborers  and  employees  earn 
the  same  salaries  as  are  earned  by  those  belonging  to  other  nation- 
alities. 

Washington,  D.  C.,  March  4, 1907. 

[Inclosure  2.] 

Legacion  de  Colombia, 

Washington. 
I. 

Both  the  President  of  the  United  States  and  his  worthy  Secretary 
of  State,  in  recent  documents,  have  emphasized  the  necessity  of  jus- 
tice and  fair  dealing  in  international  relations,  just  as  it  is  necessary 
in  individual  relations. 

In  our  differences  with  Panama,  there  are  weighty  considerations 
of  abstract  and  overspreading  justice  which  cover  and  invigorate  the 
whole  ground  of  our  claims.  These  considerations  may  be  sum- 
marized as  follows : 

(a)  That  the  secession  of  Panama  was  not  the  result  of  misgov- 
ernment  or  tyranny  exercised  on  the  Panamenos  by  Colombia. 

(b)  That  it  was  not  obtained  like  the  independence  of  Cuba,  of 
the  American  or  the  Spanish-American  colonies,  after  years  of 
struggle  and  sacrifices. 

(c)  That  there  does  not  appear  any  bona  fide  and  trustworthy 
instrument  or  concerted  action  of  long  standing  from  the  majority 
of  the  people  of  the  Isthmus  in  favor  of  secession. 

(d)  That  the  movement  was  suddenly  prompted,  after  the  rejec- 
tion of  the  Hay-Herran  treaty  by  Colombia,  by  the  action  of  the 
garrison  of  Panama,  then  in  the  pay  of  the  Colombian  Government, 
reenforced  by  a  few  influential  persons  in  the  Isthmus  and  by  the 
expected  protection  of  the  United  States. 

(e)  That  the  Colombian  Government  was  prevented  by  the  action 
of  the  agents  of  the  United  States  from  attacking  the  rebel  forces. 

(/)  That  there  has  never  appeared  in  the  Isthmus  any  show  of 
opinion  of  any  importance  in  favor  of  secession.  So  much  so  that 
even  now  there  is  a  respectable  mass  of  opinion  favorable  to  the 
reinstatement  of  the  old  condition  of  things. 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL.  139 

(g)  That  the  real  motive  for  the  secession  was  the  expected  benefit 
to  be  derived  by  the  seizure  of  the  canal  and  railway  works,  and  that 
therefore  there  is  no  consideration  of  intrinsic  justice  which  may 
justify,  under  a  moral  point  of  view,  the  forfeiture  by  the  Colombian 
Government  of  its  prosperity  on  the  Isthmus  or  any  prospective 
rights  of  property  acquired  by  the  Colombian  Government  by  pre- 
vious instruments  of  long  standing. 

(h)  That  the  efforts  made  successfully  in  Washington  for  the 
adoption  of  the  Panama  route  for  the  canal,  and  the  whole  train  of 
negotiations  for  the  delimitation  of  boundaries  with  Costa  Rica,  have 
resulted  in  the  exclusive  benefit  of  Panama. 

The  above  is  mentioned  as  facts  to  bear  on  the  points  at  issue  and 
to  show  that  they  are  unique  in  the  history  of  the  dismemberment  of 
nationalities. 

II. 

Our  differences  with  Panama  are  of  two  kinds,  the  one  regarding 
future  commercial  and  friendly  relations,  the  other  regarding  actual 
claims  on  our  part  of  a  financial  kind,  which  must  be  treated  as  a 
previous  question  to  our  recognition  of  their  independence.  The 
former  will  be  a  matter  of  future  negotiations.  The  latter  is  to  be 
settled  at  once,  if  we  may  come  to  terms. 

III. 

Our  financial  claims  come  under  four  heads : 

1.  The  external  debt. 

2.  The  interior  debt. 

3.  Claim  for  seizure  and  sale  of  the  canal  works  and  the  Panama 
Railway. 

4.  Claim  for  expenses  in  the  arbitration  for  boundaries  with  Costa 
Rica. 

IV. 

EXTERNAL  DEBT. 

The  external  debt  of  Colombia,  contracted  at  the  time  of  the  war  of 
independence,  with  the  object  of  reimbursing  the  expenses  incurred 
therein  and  the  carrying  on  of  the  independent  Government  of  the 
original  nationality  of  Colombia,  was  divided  among  three  nation- 
alities, in  the  year  1834,  in  the  proportion  of  50  per  cent  to  New 
Granada,  21^  per  cent  to  Ecuador,  and  28^  per  cent  to  Venezuela,  or 
in  approximate  proportion  to  the  population  of  each  nation. 

Panama  has  manifested  that  she  is  willing  to  accept  payment  of  a 
share  of  the  external  debt  on  the  above  proportion.  With  this  point 
of  view  Colombia  entirely  disagrees,  considering  it  at  variance  with 
equity  and  justice,  for  the  following  reasons : 

It  is  pertinent  to  remark  that  the  division  of  the  foreign  debt  of 
the  old  Republic  of  Colombia,  as  finally  agreed  upon,  was  far  from 
being  accepted  in  an  easy  and  speedy  manner.  In  1833,  New 
Granada  invited  Venezuela  to  send  an  agent  to  Bogota  for  the  pur- 
pose. The  Venezuelan  representative,  D.  Santos  Michelena.  pro- 
posed the  proportion  of  population;  the  New  Granada  minister  of 


140  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CAXAL. 

foreign  affairs  proposed  to  take  as  basis  the  wealth  of  each  nation; 
(Ten.  Santander  suggested  the  division  in  nine  parts,  allowing  four 
to  New  Granada,  three  to  Venezuela,  and  two  to  Ecuador;  Senor 
Joaquin  Mosquera  proposed  a  combination  of  the  wealth  and  popu- 
lation of  each  section.  To  all  these  proposals  the  Venezuelan  envoy 
opposed  a  steadfast  refusal,  threatening  his  withdrawal  from  the 
conference,  which  was  understood  by  eminent  persons,  among  them 
the  President,  Gen.  Santander,  to  mean  a  probable  rupture  with 
Venezuela.  Under  this  pressure  the  conference  accepted  the  division 
of  the  debt  in  the  proportion  of  the  respective  population.  The  re- 
sistance to  this  arrangement  was  so  strong  in  New  Granada  that  its 
congress  refused  to  ratify  the  treaty  after  stormy  debates  in  the  ses- 
sions of  1835. 

In  1836  Xew  Granada  invited  again  her  neighbors  to  meet  and 
settle  the  point.  To  this  invitation  Venezuela  gave  a  peremptory 
refusal,  stating  that  she  would  not  consider  any  other  agreement 
than  the  one  accepted  originally  in  Bogota. 

In  1837.  on  the  accession  of  Dr.  Jose  I.  de  Marquez  to  the  presi- 
dency, he  recommended  the  approval  of  the  Pombo-Mechelena  con- 
vention, which  was  finally  accepted  after  protracted  debates  and 
influenced  by  the  prospect  of  f-  rupture  with  Venezuela. 

According  to  the  eminent  publicist,  Carlos  Calvo,  "  When  a  nation 
is  divided  in  two  without  settling  by  special  provisions  the  division 
of  the  obligations  accepted  by  each  party,  these  obligations  should 
be  divided  between  the  two  in  equal  moities."  According  to  this 
doctrine  a  fair  division  on  principle  would  be  accepting  each  a  half 
share  in  the  charges. 

It  is  of  no  use  to  invoke  precedents  as  an  argument.  In  the  present 
instance  the  precedent  quoted  was  adopted  under  peculiar  circum- 
stances after  four  years  of  consideration  and  angry  debates  and 
under  the  prospect  of  international  complications. 

The  position  between  Colombia  and  Panama  is  an  entirely  different 
one.  Panama  is  to  get  all  the  advantages,  Colombia  all  the  disad- 
vantages. In  1834  the  partners  separated  under  a  common  agree- 
ment impulsed  by  mutual  advantages,  after  a  joint  struggle  for  inde- 
pendence in  which  the  sacrifices  and  dangers  had  been  borne  in 
common.  It  was  then  pointed  out  as  an  argument  for  the  division  of 
the  debt  as  agreed  that  Xew  Granada  was  highly  favored  by  the 
possession  within  her  territory  of  the  Isthmus  of  Panama,  consid- 
ered since  then  as  destined  to  a  brilliant  future.  Furthermore,  the 
difference  of  population  not  being  so  considerable  as  between  Panama 
and  Colombia,  it  made  the  inequality  in  the  respective  share  of  the 
charges  accepted  less  glaring  than  in  the  present  instance.  While 
the  proposition  of  division  then  was  as  1  to  2,  it  becomes  now  about 
one-tenth  to  Panama  and  nine-tenths  to  Colombia,  supposing,  for 
the  sake  of  argument,  that  the  whole  population  of  the  Republic  is 
4,000.000.  divided.  400.000  to  Panama  and  3,600,000  to  the  rest  of 
Colombia. 

And  what  difference  in  the  amount  of  advantages  to  one  party 
and  of  loss  to  the  other.  Whilst  Panama  obtains  $10,000,000  in  cash, 
a  subsidy  of  $250,000  a  year,  an  interoceanic  canal  through  her  terri- 
torv.  and  the  protection  of  the  most  powerful  nation  in  the  world, 
Colombia  -res  its  territory  torn  to  pieces,  its  resources,  it-  properties, 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL.  141 

wrung  from  her,  and  its  importance  in  the  committee  of  nations 
materially  diminished  and  injured. 

Panama  invokes  the  smallness  of  her  territory  and  the  scarcity  of 
her  population  when  it  is  a  question  of  bearing  charges,  but  ignore? 
all  these  circumstances  when  it  is  a  question  of  securing  wealth  and 
advantages. 

There  is  a  higher  law  than  the  law  of  precedent.  Such  a  law  is  the 
law  of  justice  and  equity.  To  this  law  I  appeal:  and,  for  the  further- 
ance of  it,  invoke  the  sense  of  fairness  of  our  former  brothers  and  the 
sense  of  equity  and  justice  of  the  United  States. 

It  has  been  stated  that  Panama  did  not  share  in  the  advantages 
accruing  to  the  rest  of  Colombia  by  the  expenditure  of  the  foreign 
loan.  This  assertion  is  not  well  grounded.  The  independence  of  the 
several  provinces  of  the  Isthmus  was  brought  about  by  the  struggles 
and  campaigns  which  secured  the  independence  of  Colombia,  to 
which  great  nationality  the  isthmian  provinces  annexed  themsehe- 
in  1821,  seeking  the  protection  and  defense  of  the  nation  that  had 
already  secured  her  independence  and  started  on  a  new  career. 

By  the  agreement  with  the  English  and  Dutch  bondholders  and 
Colombia,  signed  in  London  on  the  20th  of  April,  1905,  Colombia 
has  assumed  the  responsibility  for  the  payment  of  the  whole  ex- 
ternal debt  and  its  interests,  fixing  the  amount  on  the  30th  of  June, 
1905,  to- 
Principal  £2.  700,  000 

Interest  to  July  1,  1905 351.  000 


3,  051,  000 

Interest  2|  per  cent  per  annum  up  to  January  1.  1906,  and  3  per 
cent  per  annum  the  following  coupons,  pavable  1st  of  January  and 
1st  of  July. 


INTERIOR    DEBT. 

During  the  time  that  Panama  formed  a  part  of  Colombia  especial 
advantages  were  secured  for  her:  Commerce  was  free;  no  import 
duties  were  charged;  $25,000  annually  out  of  the  payment  of  the 
Panama  Railway  were  delivered  to  the  State:  Columbia  defraying  all 
expenses  on  the  Isthmus  for  salaries  of  upper  functionaries,  judici- 
ary, military  expenses,  finance  department,  normal  schools,  etc.  The 
ordinary  disbursements  amounted  to  $13,500  per  month,  or  $163,000 
annually.  In  case  of  war  in  the  Isthmus,  as  was  often  the  case,  all 
expenses  therefor  were  supported  by  the  National  Government. 

Panama,  as  well  as  the  other  parts  of  the  country,  and  often  with 
special  advantages,  shared  in  our  life,  bearing  the  common  burdens 
and  advantages.  When  the  financial  necessities  and  interior  dis- 
turbances obliged  us  to  issue  paper  money,  which  became  highly 
depreciated.  Panama  was  not  compelled  to  accept  the  forcible  cir- 
culation of  paper  money,  thereby  inflicting  considerable  loss  in 
placing  gold  on  the  Isthmus  to  attend  to  the  administration  expense.-. 
Panama  for  a  long  time  figured  as  an  unimportant  part  of  the  whole 
nation,  being  considerably  inferior  to  the  rest  of  the  Republic  in 


142  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

population,  commerce,  industry,  and  tax-burdened  region.  It  was 
the  respectability  of  the  nation  as  a  whole  which  gave  importance 
to  the  Isthmus,  and  it  was  on  that  account  that  negotiations  were 
carried  on  with  the  central  Government  for  the  important  works 
which  have  become  the  temptation  for  the  secession  of  the  Isthmus — 
the  Panama  Railway  and  the  interoceanic  canal. 

It  seems  therefore  perfectly  natural  and  just  that  Panama,  having 
shared  as  she  did  in  the  advantages  accruing  from  her  connection 
with  the  rest  of  the  Republic,  share  now  a  part  of  the  obligations 
incurred  by  the  whole  nation  in  the  work  of  maintaining  and  better- 
ing the  condition  of  the  whole  community. 

The  above  shows  our  reasons  for  demanding  that  Panama  assume  a 
part  of  the  internal  debt  of  the  country. 

According  to  data  received  lately  from  Bogota,  the  internal  debt 
is  composed  now  of  the  following  items: 

Consolidated  debt,  nominal $2,2,30,000 

Floating  debt : 1,  71S,  000 

Interior    debt 1,  500,  000 

Foreign  bonds,  foreign  claims  for  war  damages,  other  credits  for 
last  war 2,  000,  000 

Nominal 7,498,000 

The  umount  of  paper  money  in  circulation  has  been  recognized  to 

represent  in  gold 10,000,000 

17, 49S,  000 

We  claim  that  Panama  ought  to  accept  her  share  in  this  indebted- 
ness as  she  is  inclined  to  do  in  the  foreign  debt. 

VI. 

SEIZURE  AND  SALE  OF  THE  PANAMA  RAILWAY  AND  CANAL  WORK. 

On  the  17th  of  April,  1850,  the  first  contract  for  the  building  of 
the  Panama  Railway  was  signed  in  Bogota,  privilege  49,  after  20 
years'  option  for  the  Government  to  buy  for  five  millions.  On  the 
expiration  of  the  privilege  the  Government  to  become  owner  the 
(concessionary)  company  to  pay  the  Government  3  per  cent  on 
profits. 

Contract  reformed  August  15,  1867.  The  company  to  pay  the 
Government  $250,000  annually,  of  which  $25,000  were  passed  over 
to  Panama.  Stipulated  that  freight  on  Colombian  goods  should  pay 
half  freight  for  20  years  and  two-thirds  thereafter.  Railway  to 
become  property  of  the  Government  on  the  expiration  of  the  privi- 
lege, which  was  extended  to  99  years  computed  from  the  80th  of 
January,  1875.    The  contract  for  privilege  expires  1974. 

CANAL. 

First  contract  made  March  20,  1878.  Colombia  to  share  in  an  in- 
creasing rate  from  5  to  8  per  cent  on  the  gross  earnings  of  the  canal, 
one-fifth  to  Panama.  Guarantee  that  annual  amount  of  same  would 
not  be  less  than  $250,000  annually. 

Freedom  of  transport  through  flu  canal.  Colombian  ships,  troops, 
and  ammunitions  of  war.    Reformed  to  May,  1878,  the  company  to 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTOEY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  143 

pay  $10,000  monthly  to  Panama  for  payment  of  a  garrison  on  the 
works.  Fourth  of  April,  1893,  all  movable  goods  to  revert  to  the 
Government  in  case  of  forfeiture.  Other  stipulations  of  the  canal 
contract  are  well  known  to  the  American  Government. 

The  above  summary  of  stipulations  embody  contracts  which  se- 
cured for  the  benefit  of  the  Colombian  Government  certain  property 
of  periodical  payments  and  eventually  to  the  ownership  of  certain 
portions  of  real  estate  on  the  Isthmus  of  Panama.  The  railway  com- 
pany obliged  itself  to  pay  certain  amounts  to  the  Government,  pro- 
vided it  should  be  allowed  to  build  a  railroad  through  undisputed 
territory  belonging  to  the  Government  of  Colombia.  This  party 
complied  with  its  obligations,  and  the  railroad  was  built  and  worked, 
protected  by  the  Government  for  several  years.  Likewise  the  Gov- 
ernment obliged  itself  to  allow  the  canal  company  to  build  a  water- 
way in  exchange  for  which  the  company  undertook  certain  obliga- 
tions. Panama  was  not  the  sole  owner  of  the  rights  acquired  by  the 
Government  of  Colombia.  She  was  a  copartner  in  the  ninth  part  of 
all  rights  and  duties. 

Suddenly  without  any  state  of  war,  without  any  quarrel  or  dis- 
pute, and  only  as  a  sequence  to  its  severance  from  the  mother  coun- 
try, Panama  seizes  the  whole  of  the  common  property,  sells  it  to  the 
United  States,  and  forcibly  prevents  Colombia  from  deriving  any 
benefit  from  what  was  her  own  acquired  by  a  good  title,  acquired 
lawfully,  and  never  disputed.  What  justification  can  there  be  for 
this  violent  transfer  of  property,  the  sole  one  being  apparently  that 
the  United  States  covers  the  seizure  with  her  power  and  influence  ? 

If  we  had  passed  through  a  war  in  which  the  railway  should  have 
been  an  engine  of  war,  and  we  had  been  vanquished,  it  might  be 
alleged  that  the  chances  of  war  legitimized  the  seizure  of  its  elements, 
as  it  does  with  fortifications  or  war  ships.  Suppose  a  pater  familias 
would  acquire  a  property  for  the  good  of  all  the  family,  would  one 
of  the  sons  be  justified  in  running  away  with  the  family  chest  or 
family  jewels  solely  because  they  were  at  the  reach  of  his  hands? 

We  claim  that  the  Government  of  Panama  owes  us  a  compensation 
for  the  illegal  seizure  of  the  railway  and  the  canal  works  and  for 
having  entered  into  contracts  and  negotiations  for  property  which 
did  not  belong  to  them. 

VII. 

COSTA  RICA  BOUNDARY  DISPUTE. 

The  Government  of  Colombia,  through  long-winded  negotiations 
and  expense,  brought  to  a  successful  issue  the  decision  of  this  dispute, 
obtaining  a  highly  favorable  sentence  from  the  arbitrator  selected, 
the  French  President. 

The  arguments  used  in  the  suit  were  not  in  any  way  arguments 
derived  from  the  authorities  bearing  on  local  boundaries  with  the 
Province  of  Veraguas,  but  were  founded  on  documents,  being  on  the 
general  delimitation  of  the  Nuevo  Reino  de  Granada  by  Spanish 
cedulas  and  documents. 

By  the  secession  of  Panama,  she  will  become  the  exclusive  bene- 
ficiary of  actions  carried  on  and  invigorated  by  the  Republic  of 
Colombia. 

The  expenses  on  all  these  negotiations  comes  up  to  about  $100,000 
gold. 


144  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL.    " 

VIII. 

So  far  my  argument  and  point  of  view  in  reference  to  our  position 
toward  Panama  on  the  financial  question.  The  sequel  to  this  ex- 
position should  be  the  naming-  of  the  amounts  that  the  Government 
of  Colombia  considers  fair  and  just  to  be  paid  by  Panama  as  a  mod- 
erate share  in  the  general  charges  of  the  nation,  and  settlement  of 
all  claims  between  the  two  parties.  This  amount  will  be  mentioned 
farther  on.  Before  coming  to  it  I  beg  your  dispassionate  and  care- 
ful consideration  to  the  two  following  remarks: 

First.  On  naming  the  amount,  I  have  duly  considered  the  sub- 
stance of  our  private  interviews  with  Mr.  Buchanan  and  Mr.  Obaldia, 
the  resources  of  Panama,  the  circumstances  of  certain  unsettled 
claims  from  Panama  toward  Colombia,  and  a  sincere  desire  to  fur- 
ther on  and  strengthening  the  ties  of  friendship  and  fraternal  inter- 
course which  are  shared  alike  by  the  inhabitants  of  both  countries. 

Second.  I  believe  that  a  discussion  on  each  of  the  four  points  men- 
tioned in  Clause  III  of  the  above  statement  will  lead  us  to  intermin- 
able and  embarrassing  debate.  I  therefore  formulate  my  demands 
leaving  every  one  of  the  four  sections  for  what  it  may  be  worth,  as 
a  part  of  the  whole.  I  present  this  whole  as  a  joint  momentum  to 
be  permeated  in  its  wholeness  by  the  force  derived  from  the  consid- 
erations marked  on  Clause  I  of  my  statement  under  the  letters  A  to 
H  offered  as  an  exposition  of  "  weighty  considerations  of  abstract 
and  overspreading  justice  which  cover  and  invigorate  the  whole 
ground  of  our  claims." 

If  I  may  be  allowed  to  employ  a  simile,  I  would  compare  the 
ground  I  have  taken  as  representing  a  wheel,  the  spokes  of  which 
should  be  the  four  points  mentioned  in  Clause  III,  each  one  con- 
tributing its  own  force  whichever  it  may  be,  the  totality  of  them  to 
be  held  in  position  by  the  "abstract  and  overspreading  justice" 
which  is  to  act  as  a  binding  element  just  as  a  tire  does  to  a  wheel. 

IX. 

The  Government  of  Colombia  demands  from  Panama  the  pay- 
ment of  three  millions  of  dollars  gold,  cash,  under  the  guaranty  of 
the  United  States  and  under  the  stipulations  and  formalities  which 
should  be  agreed  upon  hereafter.  This  payment  to  be  in  settlement 
of  all  claims  mentioned  in  this  memorandum,  said  payment  cancel- 
ing all  claims  whatever  that  may  appear  subsequently  or  that  may 
be  unsettled  yet,  including  any  claims  that  may  be  put  forward  on 
account  of  damages  by  wars  or  state  of  war  carried  on  in  the  terri- 
tory of  Panama  from  the  year  1809  to  the  3d  of  November,  1003. 

Panama  to  declare  her  recognition  of  the  property  of  Colombia 
in  50,000  shares  of  the  new  canal  company,  issued  by  said  company 
in  favor  of  the  Government  of  Colombia,  the  certificates  of  which 
are  lying  in  the  hands  of  the  new  canal  company. 

X. 

A  stipulation  should  be  agreed  upon  to  the  effect  that  all  citizens 
of  either  of  the  two  countries,  residing  jn  the  other,  should  enjoy 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  145 

equal  political  and  civil  rights  as  the  natives,  being  however  ex- 
empted from  military  service  in  the  alien  country.  A  prudential 
term  should  be  fixed  for  the  citizens  of  one  country  residing  in  the 
other  at  the  time  of  the  secession  of  Panama,  to  declare  which  of  the 
two  nationalities  they  choose  to  select. 

XI. 

According  to  the  concordate  concluded  between  Colombia  and  the 
Holy  See.  the  former  is  to  disburse  $100,000  annually  to  be  devoted 
to  the  maintenance  of  Catholic  seminaries,  hospitals,  and  other  benefi- 
cent works,  and  any  buildings  or  other  real  estate  formerly  belong- 
ing to  the  Church  and  seized  by  the  nation  which  had  not  been  ap- 
propriated for  any  official  purpose,  should  revert  to  the  religious 
community  to  which  it  formerly  belonged.  I  suggest  that  Panama 
should  maintain  her  proportional  obligation  under  the  above,  and 
that  consequently  she  would  continue  to  devote  to  that  purpose  the 
quota  that  was  apportioned  to  the  diocese  of  Panama  bv  the  con- 
vention of  October  2,  1888,  to  wit:  $13,000  annually,  and  that  the 
stipulation  above  mentioned,  relating  to  real  estate,  should  be  com- 
plied with. 

The  justice  and  statesmanlike  policy  of  this  action  do  not  require, 
in  my  opinion,  further  comment  and  I  have  no  doubt  that  it  will 
be  readily  accepted  by  Panama. 

XII. 

As  there  may  possibly  appear  in  either  of  the  two  countries  move- 
ments tending  to  the  annexation  to  the  other  of  a  part  of  their  re- 
spective territories  I  propose,  as  a  safeguard  to  both  and  as  a  means 
to  avoid  future  causes  of  differences  between  them,  that  a  stipulation 
similar  to  the  one  concluded  between  Colombia  and  Ecuador  at  the 
time  of  their  separation  in  1832,  should  be  agreed  upon. 

Said  stipulation  runs  as  follows: 

The  States  of  New  Granada  and  Ecuador,  animated  as  they  are  by  the  best 
wishes  to  maintain  forever  the  most  complete  harmony  of  neighborhood  and 
good  understanding,  solemnly  engage  themselves  to  respect  their  respective 
boundaries  as  agreed.  In  consequence  thereof  New  Granada  shall  never  admit 
to  form  part  of  her  nationality  any  group  or  groups  of  population  which,  sepa- 
rating themselves  forcibly  from-  Ecuador,  seek  annexation  to  New  Granada  ; 
nor  shall  Ecuador  admit  any  group  or  groups  of  population  that,  separating 
themselves  forcibly  from  New  Granada,  seek  annexation  to  the  State  of 
Ecuador. 

XIII. 

As  a  means  of  stimulating  and  strengthening  the  commerce  be- 
tween the  two  countries  it  is  agreed  that  all  natural  products  belong- 
ing to  the  three  natural  kingdoms,  vegetable,  mineral,  and  animal, 
the  origin  of  which  proceeds  from  either  of  the  two  contracting 
parties,  shall  not  be  submitted,  on  their  importation  into  the  other, 
to  any  duty  whatever,  such  as  customhouse  duties,  commercial  tax, 
or  any  other  collected  at  the  time  of  and  on  account  of  their  impor- 
tation into  the  country.  It  is  understood  that  such  freedom  of  im- 
poration  is  to  be  applied  to  all  natural  products  as  above,  provided 

42112— S.  Doc  474.  03-2 10 


146  DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

they  had  not  been  submitted  to  any  manufacturing  process  subse- 
quent to  their  usual  preparation  for  the  market.  Mention  is  espe- 
cially made  of  the  following:  Coffee,  maize,  rice,  potatoes,  wheat, 
barley,  and  all  cereals,  all  kinds  of  fibers,  tobacco  in  leaves,  woods 
for  building,  furniture  or  dyeing,  salt,  platinum,  gold,  copper,  iron? 
coals,  live  animals  or  in  carcasses,  etc. 

The  above  exemption  from  duty  on  importation  does  not  exonerate 
the  articles  mentioned  from  the  payment  of  duties,  national,  depart- 
mental, or  municipal,  imposed  on  similar  articles  of  home  production 
in  the  respective  country. 

The  above  exemption  from  import  duties  does  not  apply  to  fat 
cattle  of  the  bovine  genus  (ganado  vacuno).  By  fat  cattle  is  meant 
a  live  animal  weighing  above  400  kilos,  the  importation  of  which  will 
be  subject  to  the  general  regulations  as  to  duty  in  the  respective 
country. 

XIV. 

It  should  be  stipulated  that  goods  in  transit  through  the  territory 
of  Panama  other  than  the  Canal  Zone  or  Panama  Railway  shall  not 
be  subject  to  payment  of  any  transit  duty. 

XV. 

There  shall  be  inserted  in  the  treaty  embodying  the  stipulations 
referred  to  in  the  present  memorandum  a  special  clause  of  amity 
and  friendship  between  the  two  countries  and  recognition  by  the 
Republic  of  Colombia  of  the  independence  of  the  Republic  of  Panama, 
mentioning  the  boundaries  between  the  two  countries,  as  per  the 
Colombian  law  of  June  9,  1855,  which  fixed  the  line  of  boundaries 
between  the  State  of  Cauca  and  the  State  of  Panama,  which  is  also 
included  in  the  official  edition  of  the  geography  of  T.  C.  Mosquera, 
published  in  London,  1866,  as  follows : 

From  the  Atlantic,  a  line  from  Cape  Tiburon  8°  41'  north  latitude,  3°  8'  west 
longitude,  from  Bogota  to  the  head  of  the  Rio  de  la  Miel,  and  following  the  Cor- 
dillera by  the  hill  of  Gandi  to  the  Sierra  de  Chugargun  and  Sierra  de  Mali, 
going  down  by  the  hill  of  Nique  to  the  heights  of  Aspave  and  thence  to  the 
Pacific,  between  Cocalito  and  La  Ardita :  7°  12'  north  latitude,  3°  37'  west  lon- 
gitude from  Bogota. 

XVI. 

A  stipulation  should  be  inserted  in  this  treaty  to  the  effect  that  as 
soon  as  it  is  ratified  by  the  two  nations  in  the  usual  form  and  ratifi- 
cations exchanged  negotiations  should  be  opened  for  a  treaty  or 
treaties  on  navigation,  commerce,  consular  convention,  postal  and 
telegraphic  conventions,  parcels  post,  artistic,  literary,  and  scientific 
property,  extradition  of  criminals,  etc.,  etc.,  etc.  Meanwhile  it  is 
agreed  that  the  citizens  of  each  country  shall  enjoy  in  the  other  full 
legal  protection  in  their  persons  and  property;  that  both  countries 
will  solicit  from  the  United  States  the  good  offices  of  their  diplo- 
matic and  consular  representatives  in  favor  of  their  respective  citi- 
zens of  one  country  residing  in  the  other;  that  the  forwarding  and 
transportation  of  mail  matter  and  post  parcels,  in  transit  or  origi- 
nated in  either  country  and  destined  to  the  other,  shall  be  speedily 
attended  to  and  cared  for  as  if  there  existed  a  postal  convention  be- 
tween the  two  countries. 

Washington,  D.  C,  March  4,  1907. 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  147 

[Memorandum  found  with  foregoing,  but  not  stipulating  as  to  which  articles  it  refers.] 

Once  the  canal  open  to  commerce  and  its  tariffs  established,  an 
agreement  will  be  entered  into  by  which  a  certain  return  of  the  canal 
transit  duties  paid  by  the  carrying  vessel  will  be  made  to  the  owner 
of  goods  landed  at  Colombian  ports.  Said  return  will  be  made  on  a 
fair  calculation  and  deduction  of  that  part  of  duties  which  does  not 
affect  the  actual  transit  expenses. 

Articles  15  and  17  of  the  Hay-Herran  treaty  to  be  maintained  ex- 
tending the  exemption  of  duties  on  war  vessels  to  vessels  carrying  the 
Colombian  flag. 


Legacion  de  Colombia, 
Washington,  D.  0.,  Privado,  March  7, 1907. 
Dear  Mr.  Buchanan:  I  perceive  that  on  page  17  of  my  Panama 
memorandum,  Paragraph  IX,  the  idea  expressed  in  it  might  be  con- 
strued in  a  contrary  way  to  the  Mea  I  intended  to  convey. 

I  do  modify  said  clause,  which  should  read  as  follows  after  the 
word  "  hereafter  " : 

This  payment  to  be  in  settlement  of  all  claims  mentioned  in  this  memoran- 
dum, it  being  understood  that  Colombia  does  not  assume  any  responsibility  in 
the  settlement  of  any  claims  not  presented  against  her  up  to  the  3d  of  Novem- 
ber, 1903,  on  account  of  damages  by  wars  or  state  of  war  carried  on  in  the 
territory  of  Panama  from  the  year  1899  to  the  3d  of  November,  1903. 

I  remain,  dear  Mr.  Buchanan, 
Yours,  very  sincerely, 

Enrique  Cortes. 


Secretary  Root  to  Minister  of  Colornhia. 

April  21,  1907. 
My  Dear  Mr.  Cortes:  I  am  sending  you  a  copy  of  a  letter  and 
inclosure  which  I  propose  to  send  immediately  to  Mr.  Obaldia,  unless 
you  see  some  objection. 
Faithfully  yours, 

Elihu  Root. 
Inclosures  as  above. 

[Inclosure.] 

Secretary  Root  to  the  Minister  of  Panama. 

No.  53.]  April  21,  1907. 

Sir:  As  the  Government  of  Panama  is  already  aware,  the  Gov- 
ernment of  Colombia  in  June  last  suggested  to  the  United  States 
that  the  United  States  should  use  its  good  offices  to  bring  about  an 
arrangement  between  Colombia  and  Panama  whereby  the  independ- 
ence of  Panama,  which  the  United  States  had  guaranteed,  should  be 
recognized  by  Colombia,  and  whereby  such  adjustments  should  be 
effected  between  Colombia  and  Panama  as  would  naturally  accom- 
pany a  peaceable  partition  under  which  the  economic  and  political 
relations  of  the  people  about  to  be  separated  and  their  respective 


148  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL. 

shares  of  the  public  obligations  of  the  country  about  to  be  divided. 
are  determined  by  agreement.  The  views  of  Colombia  as  to  what 
such  an  agreement  should  provide  included  stipulations  for  equal 
political  and  civil  rights;  for  reciprocal  tariff  concessions;  for  an 
obligation  to  respect  the  established  boundary  between  the  two  coun- 
tries similar  to  that  adopted  by  Colombia  and  Ecuador  at  the  time 
of  their  separation  in  1832;  and  for  a  contribution  by  Panama 
toward  the  payment  of  the  Colombian  debt,  taking  into  consideration 
certain  claims  of  Colombia  to  continued  property  interests  on  the 
Isthmus,  and  taking  into  consideration,  also,  internal  as  well  as 
external  debts,  and  suggesting  a  sum  very  much  in  excess  of  that 
which  Panama  had  advised  the  creditors  of  her  willingness  to  pay 
immediately  after  the  revolution  in  November,  1903.  Colombia  also 
proposed,  as  part  of  the  same  transaction,  that  there  should  be  a  new 
treaty  of  friendship  and  commerce  between  Colombia  and  the  United 
States,  which  should  include  the  grant  to  Colombia  of  certain  privi- 
leges in  connection  with  the  use  of  the  canal  across  the  Isthmus  simi- 
lar to  those  stipulated  for  in  the  seventeenth  article  of  the  old 
unratified  Hay-Herran  treaty  of  January,  1903.  The  United  States 
readily  agreed  to  this  proposal  of  Colombia,  so  far  as  the  United 
States  and  Colombia  were  concerned.  We  did  not,  however,  wish 
to  assume  the  duty  of  presenting  any  proposals  of  Colombia  to  Pan- 
ama without  first  being  satisfied  ourselves  that  they  were  reasonable 
and  that  it  would  be  for  the  best  interest  of  Panama  to  accept  them. 
The  whole  subject  of  the  relations  which  ought  to  be  established  be- 
tween Colombia  and  Panama  has  accordingly  been  made  the  subject 
of  extended  informal  discussion,  including  a  great  number  of  inter- 
views, between  Mr.  Buchanan,  Mr.  Cortes,  the  minister  of  Colombia, 
and  your  good  self,  and  between  me  and  all  the  other  gentlemen 
named;  as  well  as  between  Mr.  Barrett,  the  former  minister  of  the 
United  States  to  Colombia,  and  Mr.  Vasquez  Cobo,  the  Colombian 
Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs,  and  between  Mr.  Vasquez  Cobo  and 
myself.  During  these  discussions  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  became  satisfied  that  the  sum  of  $6,000,000,  which  Colombia 
wished  us  to  ask  Panama  to  pay  was,  for  various  reasons,  too  large, 
being  to  some  extent  based  upon  property  claims  which  we  deemed 
inadmissible,  and  to  some  extent  upon  considerations  relating  to  the 
internal  debt,  which  did  not  include  certain  offsets  on  the  part  of 
Panama;  and  that  in  vieAv  of  the  importance  of  the  cattle-raising 
industry  in  Panama  the  proposal  of  Colombia  that  all  cattle  should 
be  placed  upon  the  free  list  would  not  lead  to  an  equitable  result. 
Our  informal  representations  upon  these  points  have  led  to  a  modifi- 
cation of  the  Colombian  position,  so  that  Colombia  is  now  willing 
to  assent  to  an  arrangement  under  which  the  sum  of  $3,000,000,  or 
one-half  of  the  sum  originally  proposed,  shall  be  taken  as  the  full 
amount  to  be  paid  by  Panama;  and  the  proposed  reciprocal  exemp- 
tions of  cattle  from  import  duty  shall  be  limited  to  lean  cattle  and 
shall  not  apply  to  cattle  weighing  above  100  kilos.  The  external  debt 
of  Colombia  is  stated  at  3,051,000  pounds  sterling,  to  which  is  to  be 
added  interest  from  July  1,  1905.  to  January  1,  1906,  at  2^  per  cent 
per  annum,  and  interest  since  the  last-mentioned  date  at  3  per  cent 
per  annum.  The  internal  debt  is  stated  at  $17,198,000.  It 'appear- 
to  this  Government  that  the  proposals  of  Colombia  as  thus  modified, 
are  reasonable,  and  that  it  is  clearly  for  the  interest  of  Panama  to 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE   PANAMA    CANAL.  149 

accept  them  as  a  part  of  an  arrangement  which  shall  include  the 
recognition  by  Colombia  of  the  independence  of  Panama  and  the 
establishment  of  the  relations  of  the  two  countries,  which  must  always 
be  so  closely  associated,  upon  an  enduring  basis  of  peace  and  mutual 
benefit.  This  Government  therefore  feels  it  to  be  due  to  the  warm 
and  peculiar  friendship  which  exists  between  Panama  and  the  United 
States,  as  well  as  to  the  ancient  friendship  which  the  United  States 
has  entertained  for  the  Republic  of  Colombia  and  wishes  to  per- 
petuate, that  the  United  States  shall  use  its  good  offices  in  presenting 
these  proposals  to  the  Government  of  Panama,  and  expressing,  as 
it  now  does,  an  earnest  hope  that  they  may  receive  favorable  consid- 
eration. 

I  accordingly  transmit  herewith  a  literal  copy  of  the  last  paper 
received  from  the  Minister  of  Colombia  stating  these  proposals  in 
their  present  form,  omitting,  however,  certain  matters  of  argument 
which  were  relevant  only  to  the  previous  discussion  that  it  would  not 
now  be  useful  to  reproduce. 

Accept,  Mr.  Minister,  the  renewed  assurance  of  my  highest  con- 
sideration. 

Elihu  Eoot. 

Inclosure  as  above. 


[Inclosure.] 

The  Government  of  Colombia  demands  from  Panama  Hie  payment 
of  three  millions  of  dollars  gold,  cash,  under  the  guaranty  of  the 
United  States  and  under  the  stipulations  and  formalities  which 
should  be  agreed  upon  hereafter.  This  payment  to  be  in  settlement  of 
all  claims  mentioned  in  this  memorandum,  it  being  understood  that 
Colombia  does  not  assume  any  responsibility  in  the  settlement  of 
any  claims  not  presented  against  her  up  to  the  3d  of  November,  1903. 

Panama  to  declare  her  recognition  of  the  property  of  Colombia  in 
50,000  shares  of  the  New  Canal  Co.,  issued  by  said  company  in  favor 
of  the  Government  of  Colombia,  the  certificates  of  which  are  lying 
now  in  the  hands  of  the  New  Canal  Co. 

II. 

A  stipulation  should  be  agreed  upon  to  the  effect  that  all  citizens 
of  either  of  the  two  countries,  residing  in  the  other,  should  enjoy 
equal  political  and  civil  rights  as  the  natives,  being,  however,  ex- 
empted from  military  service  in  the  alien  country.  A  prudential 
term  should  be  fixed  for  the  citizens  of  one  country  residing  in  the 
other  at  the  time  of  the  secession  of  Panama  to  declare  which  of  the 
two  nationalities  they  choose  to  select. 

III. 

According  to  the  concordat  concluded  between  Colombia  and  the 
Holy  See,  the  former  is  to  disburse  $100,000  annually  to  be  devoted 
to  the  maintenance  of  Catholic  seminaries,  hospitals,  and  other 
beneficent  works,  and  any  buildings  or  other  real  estate  formerly 
belonging  to  the  church  and  seized  by  the  nation,  which  had  not 


150  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA  CANAL. 

been  appropriated  for  any  political  purpose,  should  revert  to  the 
religious  community  to  which  it  formerly  belonged.  I  suggest  that 
Panama  should  maintain  her  proportional  obligation  under  the 
above,  and  that  consequently  she  would  continue  to  devote  to  that 
purpose  the  quota  that  was  apportioned  to  the  diocese  of  Panama 
by  the  convention  of  October  2,  1888,  to  wit,  $13,000  annually,  and 
that  the  stipulation  above  mentioned,  relating  to  real  estate,  should 
be  complied  with. 

The  justice  and  statesmanlike  policy  of  this  action  do  not  require, 
in  my  opinion,  further  comment,  and  I  have  no  doubt  that  it  will  be 
readily  accepted  by  Panama. 

IV. 

As  there  may  possibly  appear  in  either  of  the  two  countries  move- 
ments tending  to  the  annexation  to  the  other  of  a  part  of  their 
respective  territories,  I  propose  as  a  safeguard  to  both,  and  as  u 
means  to  avoid  future  causes  of  differences  between  them,  that  a 
stipulation  similar  to  the  one  concluded  between  Colombia  and 
Ecuador  at  the  time  of  their  separation  in  1832  should  be  agreed 
upon. 

Said  stipulation  runs  as  follows: 

The  States  of  New  Granada  and  Ecuador,  animated  as  they  are  by  the  best 
wishes  to  maintain  forever  the  most  complete  harmony  of  neighborhood  and 
good  understanding,  solemnly  engage  themselves  to  respect  their  respective 
boundaries  as  agreed.  In  consequence  thereof,  New  Granada  shall  never  admit 
to  form  part  of  her  nationality  any  group  or  groups  of  population  which,  sepa- 
rating themselves  forcibly  from  Ecuador,  seek  annexation  to  New  Granada ; 
nor  shall  Ecuador  admit  any  group  or  groups  of  population  that,  separating 
themselves  forcibly  from  New  Granada,  seek  annexation  to  the  State  of 
Ecuador. 

V. 

As  a  means  of  stimulating  and  strengthening  the  commerce  be- 
tween the  two  countries  it  is  agreed  that  all  natural  products  be- 
longing to  the  three  natural  kingdoms,  vegetable,  mineral,  and 
animal,  the  origin  of  which  proceeds  from  either  of  the  two  con- 
tracting parties,  shall  not  be  submitted,  on  their  importation  into  the 
other,  to  any  duty  whatever  such  as  customhouse  duties,  commercial- 
tax,  or  any  other  collected  at  the  time  of  and  on  account  of  their 
importation  into  the  country.  It  is  understood  that  such  freedom 
of  importation  is  to  be  applied  to  all  natural  products  as  above,  pro- 
vided they  have  not  been  submitted  to  any  manufacturing  process  sub- 
sequent to  their  usual  preparation  for  the  market.  Mention  is  es- 
pecially made  of  the  following:  Coffee,  maize,  rice,  potatoes,  wheat, 
barley  and  all  cereals,  all  kinds  of  fibers,  tobacco  in  leaves,  woods 
for  building,  furniture,  or  dying,  salt,  platinum,  gold,  copper,  iron, 
coals,  live  animals  or  in  carcasses,  etc. 

The  above  exemption  from  duty  on  importation  does  not  exonerate 
the  articles  mentioned  from  the  payment  of  duties,  national,  depart- 
mental, or  municipal,  imposed  on  similar  articles  of  home  production 
in  the  respective  country. 

The  above  exemption  from  import  duties  does  not  apply  to  fat 
cattle  of  the  bovine  genus  (ganado  vacuno).  By  fat  cattle  is  meant 
a  live  animal  weighing  above  400  kilos,  the  importation  of  which  will 
be  subject  to  the  general  regulations  as  to  duty  in  the  respective 
country. 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA  CANAL.  151 

VI. 

It  should  be  stipulated  that  goods  in  transit  through  the  ter- 
ritory of  Panama  other  than  the  Canal  Zone  or  Panama  Railway, 
shall  not  be  subject  to  payment  of  any  transit  duty. 

VII. 

There  shall  be  inserted  in  the  treaty,  embodying  the  stipulations 
referred  to  in  the  present  memorandum,  a  special  clause  of  amity 
and  friendship  between  the  two  countries  and  a  recognition  by  the 
Republic  of  Colombia  of  the  independence  of  the  Republic  of 
Panama,  mentioning  the  boundaries  between  the  two  countries,  as 
per  the  Colombian  law  of  June  9,  1855,  which  fixed  the  line  of 
boundaries  between  the  State  of  Cauca  and  the  State  of  Panama; 
which  is  also  included  in  the  official  edition  of  the  geography  of  T.  C. 
Mosquera,  published  in  London  in  1866,  as  follows : 

From  the  Atlantic,  a  line  from  Cape  Tiburon  8°  41'  north  latitude,  3°  S'  west 
longitude  from  Bogota  to  the  head  of  the  Rio  de  la  Miel,  and  following  the  Cor- 
dillera by  the  hill  of  Gandi  to  the  Sierra  de  Chugargun  and  Sierra  de  Mali, 
going  down  by  the  hill  of  Nique  to  the  heights  of  Aspave  and  thence  to  the 
Pacific,  between  Cocalito  and  La  Ardita,  7°  12'  north  latitude,  3°  37'  west  longi- 
tude from  Bogota. 

VIII. 

A  stipulation  should  be  inserted  in  this  treaty  to  the  effect  that  as 
soon  as  it  is  ratified  by  the  two  nations  in  the  usual  form  and 
ratifications  exchanged,  negotiations  should  be  opened  for  a  treaty 
or  treaties  on  navigation,  commerce,  consular  conventions,  postal  and 
telegraphic  conventions,  parcel  post,  artistic,  literary,  and  scientific 
property,  extradition  of  criminals,  etc.  Meanwhile  it  is  agreed  that 
the  citizens  of  each  country  shall  enjoy  in  the  other  full  legal  pro- 
tection in  their  persons  and  property,  that  both  countries  will  solicit 
from  the  United  States  the  good  offices  of  their  diplomatic  and  con- 
sular representatives  in  favor  of  their  respective  citizens  of  one 
country  residing  in  the  other, 'that  the  forwarding  and  transporta- 
tion of  mail  matter  and  post  parcels,  in  transit  or  originated  in 
either  country  and  destined  to  the  other,  shall  be  speedily  attended  to 
and  cared  for  as  if  there  existed  a  postal  convention  between  the  two 
countries. 


Minister  of  Colombia  to  Secretary  Root. 

[Private.] 

Legation  of  Colombia, 
Washington,  D.  C,  April  25, 1907. 

My  Dear  Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  receipt  of  your 
communication  dated  yesterday,  which  reached  my  hands  at  6  o'clock 
p.  m.,  accompanying  the  draft  of  a  letter  }rou  purpose  sending  imme- 
diately to  Mr.  Obaldia,  unless  I  see  some  objection. 

In  answer  I  have  great  pleasure  to  express  my  satisfaction  at  the 
course  you  consider  acceptable  for  the  United  States  to  follow  in  the 
matter  of  the  relations  between  my  country,  the  United  States,  and 
Panama.  Your  proposed  letter  to  Mr.  Obaldia  is  a  fair  and  un- 
biased exposition  of  the  question  at  issue,  doing  honor  to  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  United  States.  I  have  nothing  to  reflect  upon  it,  as  a 
few7  personal  remarks  of  slight  importance  might  be  considered  later 


152  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE   PANAMA    CANAL. 

on.     I  accept  it  with  a  sense  of  sincere  appreciation  and  with  the 
desire  that  its  forwarding  should  not  be  delated.     I  return  herein 
the  drafts  you  accompanied  to  your  note,  and  remain,  dear  Mr.  Root, 
Sincerely,  yours, 

Enrique  Cortes. 

Telegram  of  the  Colombian  Minister  to  his  Government. 

[Shown  to  Department  of  State  but  original  not  ona  file.] 
[Substance.] 

May  10,  190T. 
States  his  private  opinion  that  the  only  mode  of  obtaining  rapid 
conclusion  and  assuring  ratification  of  treaty  by  Panama  will  be  to 
eliminate  commercial  clauses,  putting  them  over  for  another  treaty; 
to  sign  tripartite  treaty  with  guaranty  of  the  United  States  of  pay- 
ment of  money  and  recognizing  the  canal  shares  as  Colombian  prop- 
erty; boundary  limits  to  be  fixed  as  by  the  law  of  1855.  Adds  he 
hopes  to  obtain  $3,000,000,  which  was  the  ultimatum  according  to  his 
instructions. 


[Confidential.] 

War  Department, 
Washington,  August  17, 1907. 
My  Dear  Mr.  Wilson  :  I  herewith  send  you  the  originals  of  the 
protocols  signed  by  the  United  States  and  Colombia  and  by  Colombia 
and  Panama.     I  have  sent  copies  of  them  to  Mr.  Root  and  to  the 
President.     The  originals  were  in  quadruplicate. 
Verv  sincerely,  yours, 

Wm.  H.  Taft. 
Hon.  Huntington  Wilson, 

Third  Assistant  Secretary  of  State. 

Inclosure. 

PROTOCOL  FOR  A   TREATY  BETWEEN   COLOMBIA   AND  PANAMA. 

The  undersigned,  to-wit,  Enrique  Cortes,  envoy  extraordinary  and 
minister  plenipotentiary  of  the  Repuplic  of  Colombia  in  the  United 
States,  and  Jose  Agustin  Arango,  envoy  extraordinary  and  minister 
plenipotentiary  of  the  Republic  of  Panama  in  the  United  States;  the 
two  entities  they  represent  being  equally  animated  by  the  desire  to 
remove  the  obstacles  to  the  good  understanding  of  the  two  entities, 
to  adjust  their  pecuniary  and  other  relations  to  each  other  and  to 
mutually  secure  the  benefits  of  amity  and  accord,  have  determined  to 
sign  this  present  protocol  by  which  it  is  agreed  that  a  treaty  shall 
be  prepared  and  in  due  course  signed,  embodying  in  substance  the 
following  provisions  and  such  others  as  the  parties  may  then  mutually 
agree  upon;  and  that  the  preparation  of  the  same  shall  for  the  mutual 
convenience  of  the  parties  begin  at  the  latest  from  the  month  of 
December  next,  and  to  be  carried  on  so  as  to  finish  early  in  the  year 
1908: 

I.  In  and  as  a  part  of  said  treaty  the  Republic  of  Colombia  to 
recognize  the  independence  of  Panama  and  to  acknowledge  it  as  a 
sovereign  and  independent  State. 

II.  There  shall  be  mutual  and  inviolable  peace  and  friendship 
between  the  respective  Governments  and  peoples. 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE   PANAMA    CANAL.  153 

III.  The  Republic  of  Panama  will  assign  and  pay  over  to  the 
Republic  of  Colombia  and  its  assigns  and  nominees  the  first  ten  in- 
stallments of  $250,000  each,  gold,  becoming  due  to  Panama  from  the 
United  States  on  the  26th  days  of  February  in  the  years  1908  to 
J  017,  inclusive,  under  Article  XIV  of  the  treaty  between  the  United 
States  and  Panama  exchanged  February  26,  1904,  and  under  and 
pursuant  to  the  amendment  thereof  to  be  embodied  in  a  treaty  of 
even  date  between  said  Nations,  whereby  said  Article  XVI  is  to  be 
amended  by  substituting  therein  the  words  "four  years"  for  the 
words  "  nine  years,"  so  that  the  first  annual  payment  therein  pro- 
vided for  shall  begin  four  years  from  the  exchange  of  said  treaty 
instead  of  nine  years  from  that  date,  in  such  manner  that  the  said 
installments  shall  be  paid  by  the  United  States  of  America  directly 
to  Colombia,  its  assigns  and  nominees  for  account  of  Panama,  be- 
ginning as  from  the  26th  of  February,  1908.  In  consideration  of  the 
payments  and  releases  by  Panama,  Colombia  recognizes  and  agrees 
that  Panama  has  no  liability  upon  and  no  obligation  to  the  holders 
of  its  extenal  and  internal  debt,  nor  to  Colombia  by  reason  of  any 
such  indebtedness.  Colombia  recognizes  and  agrees  that  it  is  itself 
solely  obligated  for  such  external  and  internal  debt;  assumes  the 
obligation  solely  to  pay  and  discharge  the  same;  and  agrees  to  in- 
demnify and  hold  harmless  the  Republic  of  Panama  from  any 
liability  and  expense  in  respect  of  such  external  and  internal  in- 
debtedness. 

IV.  Each  Republic  releases  and  discharges  the  other  from  all  pecun- 
iary claims,  indebtedness  of  every  character,  including  the  external 
and  internal  debt  of  Colombia,  the  one  upon  the  other  on  the  3d 
day  of  November,  1903,  it  being  understood  that  such  mutual  release 
relates  to  the  national  concerns  only  and  not  individual  rights  or 
claims  of  the  citizens  of  either  Republic. 

V.  The  Republic  of  Panama  recognizes  it  has  no  title  or  property 
in  the  50,000  shares  of  capital  stock  of  the  New  Panama  Canal  Co. 
standing  on  the  books  of  that  company  in  the  name  of  Colombia, 
and  Panama  confirms  the  renunciation  of  all  claims  and  titles  thereto 
heretofore  made  by  it  in  legal  proceedings  pending  in  the  courts  of 
France. 

VI.  The  Republic  of  Colombia  and  the  Republic  of  Panama  re- 
ciprocally agree  that  the  citizens  of  either  of  the  two  Republics  resid- 
ing in  the  other  shall  enjoy  the  same  civil  rights  from  time  to  time 
accorded  by  them,  respectively,  to  citizens  of  any  other  nation,  it 
being  understood,  however,  that  the  citizens  of  either  of  the  two 
Republics  residing  in  the  other  shall  be  exempt  from  military  service 
imposed  upon  the  citizens  of  such  Republic. 

VII.  The  Republic  of  Panama  shall  never  admit  to  form  part  of 
her  nationality,  any  group  or  groups  of  population  which,  sepa- 
rating themselves  forcibly  from  the  Republic  of  Colombia,  seek  an- 
nexation to  the  Republic  of  Panama;  nor  shall  the  Republic  of  Co- 
lombia admit  any  group  or  groups  of  population  which,  separating 
themselves  forcibly  from  the  Republic  of  Panama,  seek  annexation 
to  the  Republic  of  Colombia. 

VIII.  As  soon  as  a  treaty  between  the  parties  hereto  and  the  con- 
temporaneous treaties  of  even  date  between  the  United  States  of 
America  and  the  Republic  of  Panama  and  between  the  United 
States  of  America  and  the  Republic  of  Colombia  shall  be  ratified  and 


154  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

exchanged,  negotiations  shall  be  entered  upon  between  Panama  and 
Colombia  for  the  conclusion  of  an  additional  treaty  covering  ques- 
tions of  commerce,  postal,  telegraph,  copyright,  consular  relations, 
extradition  of  criminals,  and  the  like. 

IX.  It  is  expressly  understood  and  agreed  that  the  treaty  when 
made  between  the  parties  hereto  shall  not  become  operative,  nor  its 
provisions  obligatory  upon  either  party  until  and  unless  treaties 
between  the  Republic  of  Colombia  and  the  United  States  of  America 
and  between  the  United  States  of  America  and  the  Republic  of 
Panama  are  both  duly  concluded  and  are  exchanged,  after  ratifica- 
tion, simultaneously  with  the  exchange,  after  ratification  of  the  treaty 
between  the  parties  hereto. 

X.  This  protocol  shall  be  treated  as  of  a  confidential  character  as 
between  the  parties  and  their  people,  and  therefore  the  particulars 
thereof  shall  be  withheld  from  publicity. 

Done  at  the  city  of  Washington  the  17th  day  of  August,  1907,  in 
quadruplicate. 

Enrique  Cortes. 
J.  A.  Arango. 

The  foregoing  protocol  has  been  examined  by  the  United  States, 
ivhich  hereby  approves  the  same. 

Dated  at  Washington,  August  17,  1907. 

Wm.  H.  Taft, 

Secretary  of  War. 
(In  behalf  of  the  United  States  by  direction  of  the  President.) 

PROTOCOL    FOR    A    TREATY    BETWEEN    UNITED    STATES    AND    PANAMA,    AT 
WASHINGTON,   AUGUST    17,    1907. 

The  United  States  of  America  and  the  Republic  of  Panama,  mu- 
tually desirous  to  facilitate  the  construction,  maintenance,  and  opera- 
tion of  the  interoceanic  canal  across  the  Isthmus  of  Panama,  and  to 
promote  a  good  understanding  between  the  nations  most  closely  and 
directly  concerned  in  this  highway  of  the  world's  commerce  and 
thereby  to  further  its  construction  and  protection;  and  it  having 
also  been  found  desirable  in  the  practical  working  of  the  treaty  ex- 
changed between  the  United  States  and  the  Republic  of  Panama 
on  the  26th  day  of  February,  1904,  to  amend  and  supplement  the 
same  in  certain  respects,  and  through  their  representatives,  Jose 
Augustin  Arango,  envoy  extraordinary  and  minister  plenipotentiary 
of  the  Republic  of  Panama  in  the  United  States,  and  William  H. 
Taft,  Secretary  of  War  of  the  United  States,  acting  for  the  United 
States;  and  both  thereunder  duly  authorized,  have  determined  to 
sign  this  protocol,  by  which  it  is  agreed  that  a  treaty  shall  be  pre- 
pared and  in  due  course  signed,  embodying  in  substance  the  follow- 
ing provisions  and  such  others  as  the  parties  may  then  mutually 
agree  upon,  subject  to  the  provisions  of  Article  II;  and  that  the 
preparation  of  the  same  shall,  for  the  mutual  convenience  of  the 
parties,  begin  in  the  month  of  December  next. 

1.  It  is  mutually  agreed  between  the  said  parties  that  Article  XIV 
cf  the  treaty  exchanged  between  them  on  the  26th  day  of  February, 
1904,  be,  and  the  same  is  hereby,  amended  by  substituting  therein  the 
words  "  four  years "  for  the  words  "  nine  years,"  and  accordingly 
the  United  States  agrees  to  make  the  annual  payments  therein  pro- 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE    PANAMA   CANAL.  155 

vided  for  beginning  four  years  from  the  exchange  of  said  treaty 
instead  of  nine  years  from  that  date. 

The  United  States  consents  and  agrees  that  Panama  may  assign 
and  transfer  in  advance  to  Colombia  and  to  its  assigns  or  nominees 
the  first  10  annual  installments  of  $250,000  each,  so  falling  due  under 
said  treaty,  as  thus  amended,  on  the  26th  day  of  February,  1908,  to 
the  26th  day  of  February,  1917,  both  inclusive,  and  its  right  and  title 
thereto,  and  upon  the  direction  and  acquittance  therefor  of  the 
Republic  of  Panama  will  pay  said  10  installments  as  they,  respec- 
tively, fall  due  directly  to  Colombia  for  account  of  Panama. 

II.  As  a  consideration  for  the  entering  into  of  this  agreement,  it  is 
hereby  agreed  between  the  United  States  and  Panama  that  the  so- 
called  modus  vivendi  embodied  in  the  reciprocal  Executive  orders 
of  December  3,  G,  16,  28,  1904,  and  January  5,  1905,  made  by  the 
Secretary  of  War,  with  the  approval  of  the  President,  on  the  one 
part,  and  on  the  other  by  the  President  of  Panama,  on  the  6th  day 
of  December,  1904,  and  which  have  proven  so  satisfactory  in  opera- 
tion, shall  be  made  the  basis  for  a  modification  and  definition  of  the 
rights  of  the  parties  under  the  treaty  between  the  United  States  and 
Panama  exchanged  February  26,  1904,  in  so  far  as  the  contracting 
parties  shall  agree  in  a  formal  treaty,  it  being  understood  that  unless 
agreement  is  reached  upon  the  provisions  of  this  article,  neither  this 
protocol  nor  the  protocol  between  Colombia  and  Panama  of  the 
same  date  shall  be  binding. 

It  is,  however,  stipulated  and  agreed  that  Panama  may  increase 
its  ad  valorem  import  duties  from  10  per  cent  (as  in  said  orders 
provided)  up  to  20  per  cent,  and  that  provision  to  this  effect  shall 
be  embodied  in  the  treaty. 

III.  The  United  States  and  Panama  reciprocally  agree  that  citi- 
zens of  either  of  the  two  Republics  residing  in  the  other  shall  enjoy 
the  same  civil  rights  accorded  to  the  citizens  of  the  Republic  within 
which  they  reside,  it  being  understood  that  citizens  of  either  of  the 
two  Republics  thus  residing  in  the  other  shall  be  exempt  from  mili- 
tary service  imposed  upou  the  citizens  of  such  Republics. 

And  the  United  States  further  agrees  that  the  Republic  of  Panama 
and  the  citizens  thereof  shall,  upon  their  request,  have  and  be 
accorded  equal  privileges,  rights,  and  advantages  in  respect  to  the 
construction,  operation,  and  use  of  the  canal,  railroad,  telegraph, 
and  other  facilities  of  the  United  States  within  the  Canal  Zone  and 
in  respect  of  all  other  subjects  relating  thereto,  operating  within  or 
affecting  the  Canal  Zone  or  property  and  persons  therein,  as  may 
at  any  time  be  granted  by  the  United  States  in  accord  with  said 
treaty,  directly  or  indirectly,  to  any  other  nation  or  the  citizens 
thereof,  it  being  the  intention  of  the  parties  that  the  Republic  of 
Panama  shall  be  with  respect  thereto  placed  at  least  on  equal  foot- 
ing with  the  most  favored  nation  and  the  citizens  thereof. 

IV.  It  is  expressly  understood  and  agreed  that  the  treaty,  when 
made  between  the  parties  hereto,  shall  not  become  operative  nor  its 
provisions  obligatory  upon  either  party  until  and  unless  treaties  be- 
tween the  Republic  of  Colombia  and  the  Republic  of  Panama  and 
between  the  Republic  of  Colombia  and  the  United  States  are  both 
duly  concluded  and  are  exchanged,  after  ratification,  simultaneously 
with  the  exchange,  after  ratification,  of  a  treaty  between  the  parties 
hereto. 


156  DIPLOMATIC    HISTOEY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

Done  at  the  city  of  Washington  the  17th  day  of  August,  1907,  in 
quadruplicate. 

Wm.  H.  Taft, 

Secretary  of  War 
(By  direction  of  the  President). 
J.  A.  Arango. 


Colombian  Minister  to  Secretary  Root. 

August  18.  1907. 

Dear  Sir  :  I  have  had  the  honor  of  an  interview  with  your  ex- 
cellency on  the  16th  instant  at  the  Hotel  Gotham,  in  New  York,  in 
reference  to  the  treaty  I  am  in  the  course  of  negotiating  with  Panama 
for  the  recognition  of  her  independence  by  Colombia. 

The  attitude  lately  assumed  by  Mr.  Cromwell,  representing 
Panama,  on  the  matter  of  boundaries  has  been  a  great  surprise.  A 
line  of  boundaries  is  suggested,  perfectly  unwarranted  by  any  title 
or  document  whatever  and  which  we  could  not,  under  any  circum- 
stances accept. 

This  matter  of  boundaries  was  carefully  studied  by  Mr.  Buchanan, 
who  came  to  a  conclusion  favorable  to  Colombia's  line  of  demarcation, 
thus  informing  the  Department  of  State.  Your  excellency  himself 
has  studied  the  point  and  become  convinced  that  our  line  of  limits 
with  Panama  was  the  one  fixed  by  the  law  of  New  Granada  of  June 
9.  1855.  To  this  effect  I  have  received  from  you  on  sundry  occasions 
complete  and  unmistakable  assurances. 

Said  line  of  limits  is  the  same  that  appears  in  the  official  edition 
of  the  war  office  map  of  the  Kepublic  of  Panama,  to  wit : 

From  Cape  Tiburon  to  the  headwaters  of  the  Rio  tie  la  Miel  and  following  the 
mountain  chain  by  the  ridge  of  Gandi  to  the  Sierra  de  Chugargun  and  that  of 
Mali  going  down  by  the  ridges  of  Nique  to  the  heights  of  Aspave  and  from  there 
to  the  Pacific  between  Cocalito  and  Ardita. 

The  matter  was  referred  to  in  our  interview,  you  being  good  enough 
to  suggest  that  it  would  be  a  wise  course,  in  view  of  the  latest  de- 
velopments in  negotiating  with  Panama,  to  leave  out  entirely  all  ref- 
erence to  the  boundaries  with  Colombia.  My  answer  was  that  I  was 
willing  to  follow  your  advice,  but  that  in  order  to  prevent  possible 
differences  with  Panama  I  ought  to  have  a  letter  from  you  stating 
the  views  of  the  United  States  and  which  were  the  boundaries  with 
Colombia  that  they  have  recognized  and  acted  upon.  Your  excel- 
lency's answer  was  in  the  sense  that  the  United  States  will  have  no 
difficulty  in  recognizing,  by  a  letter  to  me,  the  fact  referred  to  and 
that  you  consider  as  our  limits  with  Panama  those  fixed  by  the  law 
of  June  9,  1855. 

On  this  assurance  of  yours  I  came  to  Washington  yesterday  to  meet 
Mr.  Secretary  Taft.  on  his  last  day  in  this  town,  and  we  did  come  to 
an  agreement  with  himself  and  the  representatives  of  Panama,  em- 
bodying the  general  lines  of  a  treaty  to  be  signed  about  the  end  of 
the  year  simultaneously  with  other  treaties  with  the  United  States 
and  Colombia  and  Panama. 

Acting  as  agreed  with  you,  I  hereby  come  to  respectfully  request 
a  statement  of  the  views  of  the  United  States  respecting  the  line  of 
boundaries  between  Colombia  and  Panama,  so  as  to  define  the  extent 
of  territory  covered  by  the  protectorate  of  the  United  States  accord- 
in<r  to  article  1  of  the  treaty  with  Panama. 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA  CANAL.  157 

Mr.  Goznian,  the  secretary  of  the  legation,  is  ready  to  proceed 
to  Bogota,  taking  with  him  the  protocol  agreed  to  yesterday,  in 
order  to  explain  the  whole  history  to  the  Government.  I  would, 
therefore,  esteem  it  a  favor  if  you  would  give  an  early  answer  on 
receipt  of  this.  I  am  also  about  leaving  for  Europe  on  important 
business. 

I  have  the  honor  to  remain,  with  high  regards, 

Your  excellency's  obedient  and  humble  servant, 

Enrique  Cortes. 

Secretary  Root  to  the  Colombian  Minister. 

White  Plains.  X.  Y..  August  26.  1907. 
Hon.  Enrique  Cortes, 

Minister  of  Colombia,  Waldorf  Astoria.  New  York. 
My  Dear  Mr.  Cortes  : 

I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  letter  of 
August  18,  1907;  in  which  you  state  the  substance  of  an  interview 
between  us  at  the  Hotel  Gotham,  in  New  York,  on  the  16th  instant : 
"  The  description  of  the  boundary  line  of  Panama  as  described  in 
the  law  of  New  Granada  of  June  9,  1855,"  and  request  a  statement 
of  the  views  of  the  United  States  regarding  the  boundary  between 
Colombia  and  Panama  in  accordance  with  the  oral  statement  made 
by  me  at  our  interview. 

Your  account  of  what  occurred  at  the  interview  agrees  entirely 
with  my  recollection,  and  I  now  confirm  what  I  then  said  to  you 
orally  that  the  view  of  the  United  States  is  that  the  boundary  be- 
tween Colombia  and  Panama  is  that  described  in  the  above-mentioned 
law  of  New  Granada  of  June  9,  1855.  This  is  the  view  originally 
reached  by  Mr.  Buchanan  and  concurred  in  by  me,  and  a  careful 
examination  of  the  various  papers  which  have  been  adduced  during 
the  recent  negotiations  has  not  seemed  to  me  to  furnish  any  just 
ground  for  a  change  of  this  view,  which  you  may  regard  as  the 
matured  and  definite  position  of  the  Government  of  the  United 
States. 

I  am,  my  dear  Mr.  Cortes,  with  kindest  regards,  alway>. 
Sincerely,  yours, 

Elihu  Root. 


Colombian  Minister  to  Secretary  Root. 

[Translation.] 

Legation  of  Colombia, 
Washington,  D.  C,  December  5,  190, . 
Mr.  Secretary:  I  have  the  honor  to  advise  your  excellency  of  the 
return  to  this  city  of  Senor  P.  Guzman,  first  secretary  of  the  lega- 
tion, who,  as  I  informed  your  excellency  at  the  time,  went  to  Bogota 
to  deliver  to  my  Government  the  protocol  signed  in  August  last  by 
me  and  by  Senor  Jose  Agustin  Arango,  concerning  the  preliminary 
bases  for  the  conclusion  of  a  treaty  between  Colombia  and  Panama, 
an  agreement  to  which  your  excellency's  intervention  has  been  of 
so  great  importance. 


158  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

Senor  Guzman  has  brought  me  my  Government's  instructions 
concerning  the  views  set  forth  in  the  protocol  and  the  final  conclu- 
sion of  the  treaty. 

The  Government  of  Colombia  finds  the  general  bases  we  have 
arrived  at  satisfactory,  and  upon  examination  of  the  protocol  and 
of  the  note  your  excellency  addressed  to  this  legation  from  White 
Plains  under  date  of  August  26  last,  which  defines  the  position  and 
views  of  the  American  Government  touching  the  boundary  between 
Colombia  and  Panama,  his  excellency,  the  President  of  Colombia, 
was  pleased  to  record  in  the  minutes  of  the  council  of  ministers  which 
examined  those  documents  the  satisfaction  with  which  the  Government 
of  Colombia  views  the  highly  honorable  and  cordial  manner  in  which 
the  Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States,  the  Hon.  Elihu  Root,  acted 
toward  Colombia  in  the  course  of  those  negotiations,  a  declaration 
it  affords  me  special  pleasure  to  bring  to  your  excellency's  knowledge. 

My  Government  offers  various  general  remarks,  some  about  the 
elucidation  of  certain  points  which  seem  ambiguous  in  the  protocol, 
and  must  be  clearly  defined  in  the  treaty,  others,  of  a  different  nature, 
which  I  had  the  honor  to  discuss  with  the  Secretary  at  our  last 
interview. 

I  shall  defer  the  thorough  examination  of  every  one  of  those 
remarks  until  your  excellency  submits  the  draft  of  treaty,  in  accord- 
dance  with  our  private  agreement,  and  I  firmly  cherish  the  hope 
that,  considering  the  friendly  dispositions  which  animate  the  Gov- 
ernment and  people  of  Colombia  and  my  own  sentiments  as  well  as 
the  special  complaisance  with  which  your  excellency  has  received 
this  matter,  we  shall  achieve  results  that  will  bring  to  both  countries 
mutual  satisfaction  and  honor. 

With  sentiments  of  the  highest  consideration,  I  have  the  honor  to 
be  your  excellency's 

Very  obedient  and  humble  servant, 

Enrique  Cortes. 

Secretary  Root  to  Colombian  Minister. 

No.  45.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  December  17, 1907. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  note  of 
the  5th  instant  in  which  you  advise  the  department  that  the  secretary 
of  your  legation,  Senor  Guzman,  has  returned  from  Colombia  with 
the  instructions  of  your  Government  regarding  the  proposed  treaty 
between  Colombia  and  Panama. 

I  have  the  honor,  in  this  connection,  to  inclose  a  copy  in  Spanish 
of  the  draft  of  this  treaty,  submitted  to  the  department  by  the  charge 
d'affaires  ad  interim  of  Panama. 

Accept,  sir.  the  renewed  assurance  of  my  highest  consideration. 

Elihu  Root. 

Inclosure : 

Inclosure  in  personal  note  of  Panaman  charge,  December  10,  1907. 

[Translation.] 
DRAFT   OF   A    TREATY    WITH    THE   REPUBLIC   OF   COLOMBIA. 

The  Republic  of  Panama  and  the  Republic  of  Colombia,  which 
constituted  a  single  nation  up  to  November  3.  1903.  and  which  have 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  159> 

since  then  separated  for  reasons  of  expediency,  being  desirous  of 
putting  an  end  to  the  irregular  character  of  their  relations,  of  wind- 
ing up  the  affairs  which  originated  during  their  common  political 
existence  in  the  past,  and  of  establishing  general  rules  to  govern  their 
future  relations,  have  conferred  their  full  powers  for  this  desirable 
purpose,  to  wit:  The  Republic  of  Colombia  on  Mr.  Enrique  Cortes, 
its  envoy  extraordinary  and  minister  plenipotentiary  at  Washing- 
ton, and  the  Republic  of  Panama  on  Mr.  Jose  Agustin  Arango,  its 
envoy  extraordinary  and  minister  plenipotentiary  in  the  same  city, 
in  which  took  place  the  negotiations  regarding  the  friendly  and 
mutually  acceptable  mediation  of  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  of  America;  who,  after  exchanging  their  respective  full  pow- 
ers and  finding  them  in  good  and  due  form,  have  agreed  on  the 
following  articles : 

Article  I.  The  Republic  of  Colombia  respects  the  desire  of  the 
people  of  Panama  to  form  an  independent  Nation,  and  therefore  rec- 
ognizes the  sovereignty  and  independence  of  the  Republic  of  Panama 
since  6  o'clock  in  the  afternoon  of  November  3,  1903. 

Art.  II.  There  shall  be  perfect  and  perpetual  peace  and  sincere 
and  inviolable  friendship  between  the  Republic  of  Panama  and  the 
Republic  of  Colombia,  and  they  shall  maintain  that  respect  and 
mutual  consideration  for  each  other  which  is  necessary  for  the  pres- 
ervation of  such  peace  and  friendship. 

Art.  III.  The  Republic  of  Panama  cedes  and  transfers  to  the 
Republic  of  Colombia,  or  to  whoever  represents  the  rights  of  the  lat- 
ter in  due  and  lawful  form,  the  first  10  annual  payments  of  $250,000 
gold  coin  each  which  it  is  to  receive  from  the  United  States  of 
America  on  the  26th  day  of  February  of  each  of  the  years  from  1908 
to  1917,  both  inclusive,  in  accordance  with  Article  XIV  of  the  treaty 
between  the  Republic  of  Panama  and  the  United  States  of  America, 
the  ratifications  of  which  were  exchanged  on  February  26,  1904,  and 
with  the  modification  of  said  article  which  is  agreed  upon  between 
them  in  another  treaty  signed  on  this  same  date,  which  modification 
consists  in  substituting  the  words  "  four  years  "  for  the  words  "  nine 
years,"  so  that  the  first  annual  payment  is  to  be  made  four  years 
after  February  26,  1904  (the  date  of  the  exchange  of  ratifications 
of  the  aforementioned  treaty),  and  the  10  annual  payments  are  to 
be  paid  directly  to  Colombia  by  the  United  States  of  America. 

Art.  IV.  In  consideration  of  the  cession  of  these  payments  and 
of  the  tacit  and  express  pecuniary  renunciations  which  the  Republic 
of  Panama  makes  in  favor  of  the  Republic  of  Colombia,  the  latter 
recognizes  and  agrees  to  declare,  and  does  hereby  declare,  that  the 
Republic  of  Panama  is  under  no  obligation  or  responsibility  toward 
the  bondholders  of  the  external  or  internal  debts  of  the  Republic 
of  Colombia  or  toward  those  who  may  have  claims  against  the 
Republic  of  Colombia,  whatever  be  the  nature  of  such  claims,  or 
toward  Colombia  herself  by  reason  of  such  debts  or  claims,  since 
Colombia  recognizes  and  agrees  that  she  is  alone  responsible  for 
these  claims  and  external  and  internal  debts,  assumes  the  obligation 
to  pay  them  herself,  and  pledges  herself  to  guarantee  the  Republic 
of  Panama  against  any  responsibility  or  cost  on  account  of  the 
said  claims  and  external  and  internal  debts. 

Art.  V.  Each  of  the  contracting  Republics  discharges  and  liber- 
ates the  other  from  any  pecuniary  claim  or  obligations  of  what- 


160  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

soever  nature,  including  the  internal  and  external  debt  of  Colombia, 
which  one  may  have  had  against  the  other  on  November  3,  1903,  it 
being  understood  that  this  mutual  discharge  comprises  only  the 
national  debts  and  claims  of  either  against  the  other  and  that  there 
are  expressly  excepted  therefrom  the  bills  or  claims  of  the  citizens 
or  corporations  of  either  of  the  parties  against  the  treasury  of  the 
other,  which  bills  or  claims  remain  in  full  force  and  validity  and 
shall  be  attended  to  duly  and  promptly. 

Art.  VI.  The  Republic  of  Panama  renounces  and  abandons  any 
right  which  it  may  have  now  or  in  the  future  to  the  50,000  shares 
in  the  new  Panama  Canal  Co.  which  appear  in  Colombia's  name  on 
die  books  of  said  company  at  Paris,  and  it  hereby  confirms  the  re- 
linquishment of  its  claim  thereto  which  it  made  in  the  suit  pending 
before  the  courts  of  France. 

Art.  VII.  The  citizens  of  either  of  the  two  contracting  Republics 
residing  within  the  territory  of  the  other  shall  enjoy  the  same  civil 
rights  as  may  be  granted  from  time  to  time  by  the  laws  of  the 
country  to  the  citizens  of  any  other  nation;  they  shall  not  be  sub- 
ject to  any  greater  obligations  than  these  latter,  and  shall  be  exempt 
from  all  military  service. 

Art.  VIII.  Both  contracting  Republics  agree  that  neither  of  them 
shall  permit  any  portion  of  the  territory  of  the  other  which  may 
be  separated  from  it  by  force  to  form  part  of  their  national  territory. 

Art.  IX.  As  soon  as  this  treaty  and  those  which  have  been  signed 
at  the  same  time  as  it  between  the  Republic  of  Colombia  and  the 
United  States  of  America  and  between  the  Republic  of  Panama  and 
the  United  States  of  America  have  been  ratified  and  the  ratifications 
thereof  exchanged,  the  Republics  of  Panama  and  Colombia  shall 
enter  negotiations  for  the  conclusion  of  commercial,  postal,  tele- 
graphic, copyright,  consular,  extradition,  and  other  conventions 
which  may  be  considered  necessary  for  the  regular  maintenance  of 
the  good  relations  between  the  two  countries. 

Art.  X.  This  treaty  shall  not  be  binding  on  either  of  the  contract- 
ing parties,  nor  shall  it  have  any  validity,  until  and  unless  the 
treaties  signed  on  this  same  date  between  the  Republic  of  Panama 
and  the  United  States  of  America  and  between  the  Republic  of 
Colombia  and  the  United  States  of  America  are  both  duly  ratified 
and  their  ratifications  exchanged  simultaneously  with  the  exchange 
of  the  ratifications  of  this  treaty. 

In  witness  whereof,  we,  the  plenipotentiaries  of  each  contracting 
Republic,  have  signed  it  and  sealed  it  with  our  special  seals  in  the 

city  of  Washington,  on  the day  of  the  month  of of  the 

year  one  thousand  nine  hundred . 


Colombian  Minister  to  Secretary  of  State. 

[Translation.] 

No.  277.]  Legation  of  Colombia, 

Washington^  D.  C,  December  20, 1907. 
Mr.  Secretary  of  State:  Conforming  to  the  course  which  I  am 
instructed  by  my  Government  to  pursue  in  everything  that  pertains 
to  the- pending  negotiations  for  the  recognition  of  the  independence 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  161 

of  Panama  by  Colombia,  viz,  to  do  nothing  without  the  knowledge 
and  consent  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  I  beg  to  ac- 
quaint your  excellency  with  the  incidents  that  recently  took  place 
therein.  Serior  Arosemena,  secretary  of  the  legation  of  Panama,  has 
handed  me  a  draft  of  a  treaty  prepared  as  it  appears  in  Panama 
and  evolved  out  of  the  terms  of  the  protocol  signed  on  August  17 
last  by  Senor  Arango  and  myself.  A  copy  of  the  draft  has  also 
been  given  to  the  Department  of  State,  according  to  your  excel- 
lency's note  of  the  17th  instant  to  this  legation.  I  immediately 
informed  orally  Senor  Amador,  as  well  as  your  excellency,  that  it 
would  be  necessary  to  add,  in  the  final  text  of  the  treaty,  certain 
explanations  which  would  determine  the  scope  of  some  of  the  stipu- 
lations of  the  protocol,  without  altering  its  fundamental  bases. 

As  I  informed  your  excellency,  the  Government  of  Bogota  upon 
gaining  knowledge  of  the  letter  your  excellency  was  pleased  to 
address  to  me  from  White  Plains  on  August  26  last,  which  sets  down 
the  position  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States  in  regard  to 
the  boundary  between  Colombia  and  Panama  recognized  by  it, 
thought  itself  warranted  in  putting  its  authority  into  effect  in  Jurado 
and  the  adjoining  territory. 

It  is  true  that  the  territory  was  in  dispute  between  the  former 
States  of  Cauca  and  Panama,  and  was  at  one  time  administered  by 
authorities  under  the  department  of  Panama,  prior  to  the  secession 
contemplated  by  the  latter  department,  but  the  Government  of  Colom- 
bia had  decided  the  question  by  recognizing  that  territory  as  belong- 
ing to  the  State  of  Cauca,  which,  in  those  parts,  is  now  the  territory 
of  Choco,  by  means  of  the  line  described  in  the  law  of  June  9,  1855, 
which  is  the  line  recognized  by  the  United  States.  The  authority 
exercised  by  the  department  of  Panama,  which  prior  to  the  seces- 
sion was  unimportant  on  account  of  the  elimination  of  the  system 
of  Federal  States  and  the  adoption  of  the  system  of  departments 
with  scant  local  autonomy,  resumed  importance  from  the  moment  it 
involved  an  entity  which  claimed  independent  existence. 

Yet,  while  it  had  an  abundance  of  right,  the  Government  of  Colom- 
bia Avas  perplexed  as  to  the  attitude  it  should  assume,  lest  it  might 
come  into  conflict  with  the  United  States.  It  therefore  confined 
itself  to  appointing  authorities  in  Jurado,  which,  as  I  am  informed, 
have,  with  periods  of  intermission,  exercised  jurisdiction  alternately 
with  the  authorities  of  Panama,  but  it  has  refrained  from  sending 
troops  for  the  military  occupation  of  the  disputed  territory.  Once 
in  possession  of  the  State  Department's  note,  however,  the  situation 
assumed  a  different  aspect.  And  so,  on  hearing  that  Panamanian 
forces  had  been  landed  at  Jurado,  it  made  preparations  to  occupy 
that  town,  but  issued  orders  to  avoid  any  conflict.  The  incident 
gave  occasion  for  an  exchange  of  views  between  the  Government  of 
the  United  States,  the  American  minister  at  Bogota,  the  Government 
of  Colombia,  and  this  legation.  I  am  under  instructions  to  request 
the  withdrawal  of  the  aforesaid  forces,  if  they  were  there,  and 
of  the  Panamanian  authorities,  and  have  so  informed  your  ex- 
cellency. But  in  view  of  the  declarations  of  Panama,  communi- 
cated to  me  by  your  excellency,  to  the  effect  that  the  occupation  does 
not  bear  such  features  of  gravity  as  had  been  believed,  and  that  it 

42112— S.  Doe.  474,  63-2 11 


162  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

might  be  wiser  to  avoid  incidents  which  might  arouse  public  opinion 
in  both  countries  at  the  very  time  when  an  effort  was  made  to  resume 
relations,  I  deemed  it  advisable  to  suggest  to  my  Government  the 
expediency  of  postponing  the  sending  of  forces  to  Jurado.  In  the 
meanwhile  I  gladly  availed  myself  of  an  invitation  I  received  from 
Seiior  Amador  to  an  amicable  conference  in  New  York.  Poor  health 
prevented  my  going  in  person,  but  the  secretary  of  the  legation,  Seiior 
Guzman,  and  its  counselor,  Seiior  Pasos,  went  over.  The  last-named 
gentleman  is  an  old  personal  friend  of  Seiior  Amador.  The  estimable 
secretary  now  in  charge  of  the  legation,  Seiior  Arosemena,  was 
present  at  the  interviews,  and  it  affords  me  pleasure  to  acknowledge 
the  spirit  of  deference  and  friendship  toward  Colombia  evinced  by 
the  two  gentlemen  at  the  conference. 

From  the  outset,  Seiior  Amador  did  not  oppose  the  insertion  in 
the  treaty  of  certain  explanatory  clauses  we  might  discuss.  The  first, 
which  I  mentioned  to  your  excellency,  is  one  by  which  it  is  made 
clear  that,  while  Colombia  recognizes  the  right  of  citizens  of  Panama 
to  present  private  claims  to  the  Colombian  Government  on  account 
of  incidents  anterior  to  the  recognition  of  independence,  it  is  under- 
stood that  the  said  claims  shall  be  presented  and  received  in  accord- 
ance with  the  laws  and  administrative  regulations  in  force  in  Colom- 
bia so  that  the  citizens  of  Panama  shall  not  be  placed  in  a  more  fa- 
vorable situation  than  the  citizens  of  Colombia.  Seiior  Amador  and 
Seiior  Arosemena  declared  their  readiness  to  accept  this  or  a  like 
explanatory  addition  to  the  protocol  and  found  it  fair  and  reasonable. 

The  Jurado  matter  was  taken  up  next.  Seiior  Amador  had  no 
knowledge  of  your  excellency's  letter  of  the  26th  of  August,  which 
was  then  made  known  to  him  and  of  which  a  copy  was  subsequently 
given  him  with  the  consent  of  your  department. 

Messrs.  Guzman  and  Pasos  have  a  strong  impression  that  Messrs. 
Amador  and  Arosemena  consider  that  letter  to  be  practically  decisive 
in  respect  of  the  boundary  between  Panama  and  Colombia. 

After  the  letter  had  been  made  known  to  him,  Seiior  Amador  was 
told  that  the  Government  of  Colombia  would  desire  to  have  steps 
taken  toward  the  withdrawal  of  the  armed  force  and  of  the  authori- 
ties from  Jurado,  as  the  Government  wished  to  have  its  authority 
respected  there  now  that  the  situation  had  been  defined  by  the  said 
letter. 

Seiior  Amador  opposed  no  difficulty  to  the  evacuation,  but  added 
that  he  could  not  issue  orders  from  here;  that  he  would  sail  for 
Panama  on  the  10th  instant,  and  offered  to  give  immediately  upon 
his  arrival  precedence  to  this  matter,  which  he  hoped  to  be  able  to 
bring  to  a  satisfactory  solution. 

Messrs.  Guzman  and  Pasos  represented  to  Messrs.  Amador  and 
Arosemena  that  the  Government  of  Colombia  believed,  although  the 
clauses  of  the  protocol  did  not  contain  anything  concerning  the 
demarcation  of  the  boundary  line,  it  would  be  mutually  advan- 
tageous to  law  down  the  said  demarcation  for  the  following  reasons: 

First.  Because  when  the  Colombian  legation  agreed,  at  your  excel- 
lency's suggestion,  not  to  mention  the  boundary  question  in  the  proto- 
col it  did  so  on  account  of  Panama  having  advanced  claims  on  this 
point  to  which  it  was  absolutely  impossible  for  the  Colombian  lega- 
tion to  assent,  and,  having  received  the  State  Department's  letter 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  163 

of  the  26th  of  August,  I  thought  that  it  practically  settled  any  con- 
flict that  might  hereafter  arise  on  this  point  with  Panama.  But  the 
Jurado  incident  has  brought  proof  that  in  this  the  legation  was  mis- 
taken, since  other  and  similar  possible  conflicts  may  arise  to-morrow, 
just  as  this  one  does  to-day,  and  in  the  course  of  time,  when  the  re- 
quirements and  aims  of  commerce  and  industry  in  the  Atrato  region 
grow  more  exacting  and  acute,  the  possibility  and  danger  of  such  con- 
flicts and  questions  will  grow  larger,  bringing  out  in  full  force  the 
historical  fact  that  an  undefined  boundary  line  is  the  most  fruitful 
source  of  discord  between  bordering  nations. 

Second.  Because  the  existence  of  the  letter  of  August  26  makes  it 
completely  and  absolutely  impossible  to  carry  out  any  attempt  on  the 
part  of  Panama  to  obtain  Colombia's  acceptance  of  any  arrangement 
that  would  culminate  in  having  the  boundary  defined  as  claimed  by 
Panama.  Hence  the  step  which  wisdom,  foresight,  and  a  spirit  of 
fraternal  harmony  dictate  seems  to  be  that  by  which  this  vexatious 
question  Avill  be  settled  at  once.  And  this  can  only  be  done  by  Panama 
accepting  the  boundary  line  recognized  by  the  Government  of  the 
United  States. 

To  the  foregoing  and  other  similar  remarks  Senor  Amador,  while 
he  did  not  give  his  explicit  assent,  opposed  no  positive  denial;  he 
confined  himself  to  saying  that  he  would  discuss  the  point  with  his 
friends  at  Panama.  Senor  Arosemena  declared  that,  in  view  of 
the  situation  created  by  the  letter  of  August  26,  if  the  American 
Government  declared  it  its  wish  to  have  the  said  demarcation  of 
the  boundary  accepted,  Panama  could  have  no  choice  but  to  ac- 
quiesce, and  added  that  Mr.  Buchanan  had  made  some  intimation  in 
that  sense. 

The  foregoing  relates  as  briefly  as  possible  the  general  points  con- 
sidered at  the  New  York  interview  by  Messrs.  Guzman  and  Pasos, 
Amador  and  Arosemena.  They  have  been  stated  orally  by  me 
to  your  excellency,  and  are  now  repeated  in  writing  in  order  to  put 
the  ideas  in  a  more  permanent  form  and  to  enable  your  excellency 
to  take  them  into  consideration  when  the  time  comes  to  fix  the  con- 
crete terms  of  the  treaty. 

In  this  respect  I  am  now  engaged  in  the  preparation  of  a  draft 
of  the  treaty  which  I  shall  send  in  due  time  to  the  Department  of 
State  and  which  will  set  forth  the  amended  and  explanatory  clauses, 
which  in  the  opinion  of  Colombia  ought  to  be  inserted  therein.  In 
conclusion,  I  have  to  represent  to  your  excellency  that  the  Govern- 
ment of  Colombia  attaches  great  importance  to  the  demarcation  of 
the  boundary  line,  believing  that  its  omission  would  arouse  con- 
siderable excitement  in  the  public  opinion  of  the  country,  owing  to 
the  impression  that,  by  leaving  the  point  unsettled,  fresh  supply 
would  be  added  to  a  source  of  possible  and  probable  conflicts  which 
would  impede  the  establishment  of  that  complete  and  fraternal 
harmony  sincerely  desired  by  us  and  prevent  its  strengthening  and 
cementing,  which,  after  what  has  taken  place,  demand  an  elevated 
spirit  of  conciliation  and  prudence. 

I  beg  your  excellency  to  be  pleased  to  accept  the  assurances  of 
my  highest  and  most  distinguished  consideration. 

Enrique  Cortes. 


164  DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

Colombian  Minister  to  Secretary  Root. 

Legation  of  Colombia, 
Washington,  D.  C,  December  28,  1907. 

Sir:  I  beg  to  refer  to  your  honored  communication  of  the  17th 
instant,  No.  1502/60,  to  which  you  were  good  enough  to  accompany 
a  copy  of  a  draft  treaty  between  Colombia  and  Panama  submitted 
to  the  department  by  the  charge  d'affaires  ad  interim  of  Panama. 

As  I  had  the  honor  to  mention  in  my  communication  to  you  dated 
the  20th  December,  said  draft  required,  in  my  opinion,  certain  altera- 
tions, the  purport  of  which  I  detailed  in  my  said  communication. 

In  accordance  with  my  letter  above  mentioned,  I  have  the  honor 
to  submit  a  copy  both  in  English  and  Spanish  which  I  propose  in 
lieu  of  the  text  submitted  by  Mr.  Arosemena.  My  project  adheres 
more  closely  to  the  words  of  the  protocol  and  embodies  certain  ex- 
planations and  additions.  Regarding  the  latter,  I  beg  to  inclose  an 
explanatory  memorandum  for  your  consideration,  it  being  an  extract 
of  my  train  of  argument  in  my  above-mentioned  letter. 

I  beg  of  you  to  give  fair  consideration  to  the  subject,  and  have 
the  honor  to  present  the  assurances  of  my  high  consideration. 

Enrique  Cortes. 

[Memorandum  in  explanation  of  the  Columbian  Legation  draft  of  a  treaty  between  Co- 
lombia and  Panama  as  compared  with  the  protocol  of  17th  August,   1907.] 

THE    INTRODUCTION    OF    THE    PROTOCOL. 

My  draft  conforms  to  the  terms  of  the  introduction. 

Articles  I  and  II  of  my  draft  conform  to  the  terms  of  the  pro- 
tocol. 

Article  III  conforms  to  my  draft  up  to  the  words  "  to  pay  and  dis- 
charge the  same."     Thenceforward  my  draft  is  worded  thus : 

and  it  agrees  to  indemnify  and  hold  harmless  the  Republic  of  Panama,  if  occa- 
sion arises,  from  any  liability  toward  the  holders  of  such  external  and  internal 
indebtedness. 

instead  of — 

and  agrees  to  indemnify  and  hold  harmless  the  Republic  of  Panama  from  any 
liability  and  expense  in  respect  of  such  external  and  internal  indebtedness. 

My  changes  are  of  small  importance,  conforming  to  the  previous 
words  and  suppressing  the  word  "  expense,"  which  by  its  vagueness 
might  give  rise  to  posterior  misunderstandings. 

Furthermore,  my  draft  explains  the  meaning  of  external  debt, 
which,  in  Colombia,  officially  and  commercially  only  refers  to  the 
foreign  debt  toward  the  foreign  bondholders'  committee,  of  London, 
there  being  no  other  indebtedness  known  under  that  name. 

Article  IV  of  the  protocol :  My  draft  adds  the  following  proviso : 

It  is  understood  that  such  individual  claims  and  rights  as  may  have  had  their 
origin  in  occurrences  anterior  to  the  3d  of  November,  1903,  shall  be  adjusted 
in  accordance  with  the  legislation  of  the  Republic  to  which  they  may  be  pre- 
sented and  by  the  tribunals  or  authorities  of  the  same,  so  that  in  no  case  the 
claimants  may  enjoy  greater  privileges  and  advantages  than  the  citizens  of  the 
Republic  against   vvl  icl     thi    claim  is  made. 

The  reason  for  this  addition  has  been  explained  both  to  his  excel- 
lency Mr.  Koot  and  to  Senores  Amador  and  Arosemena,  who  con- 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA  CANAL.  165 

sider  the  explanation  therein  established  as  reasonable  and  just.  In 
fact,  I  consider  it  indispensable. 

Articles  V,  VI,  and  VII  of  the  protocol,  no  change. 

Article  VIII  of  the  protocol  is  suppressed,  as  its  existence  in  the 
treaty  seems  irrelevant  in  so  far  as  its  purport  remains  binding 
on  both  parties  as  a  part  of  the  protocol  for  a  future  period.  How- 
ever, if  it  is  not  considered  out  of  place  in  the  treaty  we  are  willing 
to-  accept  it. 

Article  IX  of  the  protocol,  no  change. 

NEW   ARTICLES   OF   MY   DRAFT. 

Article  X,  providing  for  submittal  to  ratification  by  the  respective 
Governments.     No  difficulty  should  arise  on  this. 

Article  VIII :  This  article  refers  to  the  acceptance  by  Panama  of 
our  line  of  boundaries.  Although  no  provision  on  this  head  appears 
in  the  protocol  I  consider  that  its  insertion  in  the  treaty  is  advisable 
for  the  mutual  benefit  of  the  parties  concerned,  and  this  for  the 
reasons  submitted  by  myself  to  Mr.  Root,  and  by  Messrs.  Guzman 
and  Pasos  to  Messrs.  Amador  and  Arosemena  in  the  New  York  con- 
ference.    Briefly  they  are  summarized  thus: 

First.  The  general  convenience  to  avoid  future  complications  and 
misunderstandings,  it  being  a  well-known  fact  in  history  that  uncer- 
tainty in  the  demarcation  of  boundaries  between  adjoining  nations 
is  the  most  fruitful  source  of  trouble  in  their  relations. 

Second.  Because  the  danger  of  friction  in  the  present  instance  has 
become  apparent  by  the  recently  developed  incident  of  the  occupation 
of  Jurado,  which  has  produced  considerable  excitement  in  both  coun- 
tries, showing  at  measurable  distance  the  possibility  and  danger  of 
friction  and  even  rupture. 

Third.  Because  the  respective  positions  in  the  matter  of  boundaries 
of  the  two  countries,  which  at  one  period  of  the  negotiations  appeared 
impossible  to  conciliate,  has  been,  in  my  opinion,  completely  simpli- 
fied by  the  declaration  of  the  United  States  embodied  in  the  letter 
of  Mr.  Secretary  Root  to  Mr.  Cortes,  of  the  26th  of  August  last, 
recognizing  as  boundaries  between  Colombia  and  Panama  the  same 
as  upheld  by  Colombia.  This  declaration,  throwing  as  it  does  the 
weight  of  the  United  States  opinion  on  the  side  of  Colombia,  should 
be  decisive  as  far  as  argument  is  concerned.  Besides,  it  practically 
solves  the  problem  as  far  as  Colombia  is  concerned,  since,  for  obvious 
reasons,  the  United  States  could  not  become  a  party,  in  its  character 
of  protector  of  Panama,  by  reason  of  any  dispute  as  to  boundaries. 

It  will  therefore  materially  assist  in  cementing  future  friendship, 
not  only  between  Colombia  and  Panama  themselves,  but  likewise  be- 
tween these  two  nations  and  the  United  States,  as  it  will  forever  dis- 
pose of  a  knotty  situation  and  one  which,  as  far  as  Colombia  is  con- 
cerned, is  considered  by  all  the  Colombian  Nation  as  of  paramount 
importance. 

Enrique  Cortes. 

Washington,  December  28,  1907. 

[Treaty — English  text.] 

The  Republic  of  Colombia  and  the  Republic  of  Panama,  being 
equally  animated  by  the  desire  to  remove  the  obstacles  to  a  good 


166  DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

understanding  between  them,  to  adjust  their  pecuniary  and  other 
relations,  and  to  mutually  receive  the  benefits  of  amity  and  accord, 
have  determined  to  conclude  a  treaty  for  the  attainment  of  those 
object.-,  and  have  appointed  their  respective  plenipotentiaries: 

The  President  of  Colombia,  Senor  Don  Enrique  Cortes,  Envoy  Ex- 
traordinary and  Minister  Plenipotentiary  of  Colombia  in  Washing- 
ton; and 

The  President  of  the  Republic  of  Panama,  Senor  Don  Jose  Agustin 
Arango,  Envoy  Extraordinary  and  Minister  Plenipotentiary  of 
Panama  in  Washington; 

Who,  after  having  exhibited  their  respective  full  powers,  and  hav- 
ing found  the  same  to  be  in  good  and  due  form,  have  agreed  upon  the 
following  articles: 

Article  I. 

The  Republic  of  Colombia  recognizes  the  independence  of  the 
Republic  of  Panama  and  acknowledges  it  as  a  sovereign  and  inde- 
pendent state. 

Article  II. 

There  shall  be  mutual  and  inviolable  peace  and  friendship  between 
the  Government  of  Colombia  and  its  citizens  on  the  one  part,  and 
the  Government  of  Panama  and  its  citizens  on  the  other  part. 

Article  III. 

The  Republic  of  Panama  agrees  to  assign  and  transfer  to  the  Re- 
public of  Colombia  and  its  assigns  and  nominees,  the  first  ten  annual 
installments  of  two  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  dollars  each  in 
gold  coin  becoming  due  to  Panama  from  the  United  States  of 
America  on  the  26th  day  of  February  in  the  year  1908  and  annually 
thereafter  on  the  26th  of  February  up  to  the  year  1917  inclusive, 
under  Article  XIV  of  the  treaty  between  the  United  States  of 
America  and  the  Republic  of  Panama  exchanged  February  26,  1904, 
and  under  and  pursuant  to  the  amendment  of  said  article  embodied 
in  a  treaty  of  even  date  herewith  made  and  entered  into  between  the 
United  States  and  Panama  whereby  said  Article  XIV  is  amended  by 
substituting  the  words  four  years  for  the  words  "  nine  years,"  so 
that  the  first  annual  payment  therein  provided  for  shall  begin  four 
years  instead  of  nine  years,  from  the  exchange  of  said  treaty  of 
February  26,  1901,  in  such  manner  that  the  said  ten  annual  install- 
ments shall  be  paid  for  account  of  Panama  by  the  United  States  of 
America  directly  to  Colombia,  its  assigns  and  nominees,  beginning  on 
the  26th  day  of  "February,  1908. 

In  consideration  of  the  payments  and  releases  by  Panama,  Colombia 
recognizes  and  agrees  that  Panama  has  no  liability  upon  and  no 
obligation  to  the  holders  of  the  external  and  internal  debt  of  Co- 
lombia, nor  to  Colombia  by  reason  of  any  such  indebtedness.  Colombia 
recognizes  and  agrees  that  it  is  itself  solely  obligated  for  such  ex- 
ternal and  internal  debt ;  it  assumes  the  obligation  solely  to  pay  and 
discharge  the  same;  and  it  agrees  to  indemnify  and  hold  harmless  the 
Republic  of  Panama,  if  occasion  arises,  from  any  liability  towards 
the  holders  of  such  external  and  internal  indebtedness.     It  is  under- 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTOEY   OF   THE   PANAMA  CANAL.  167 

stood  that  the  external  debt  herein  referred  to  is  that  which  was 
recognized  and  set  forth  in  the  agreement  signed  in  London  April 
20th,  1905,  between  the  Government  of  Colombia  and  the  Council  of 
Foreign  Bondholders,  by  the  terms  of  which  it  was  agreed  that  the 
Government  of  Colombia  assumed  the  exclusive  responsibility  for 
the  payment  of  principal  and  interest  of  the  said  external  debt. 

Article  IV. 

Each  of  the  contracting  Republics  releases  and  declares  the  other 
free  from  all  pecuniary  claims  and  indebtedness  of  every  character, 
including  the  external  and  internal  debt  of  Colombia,  the  one  upon 
the  other,  existing  on  the  third  day  of  November,  1903 ;  it  being  un- 
derstood that  such  mutual  release  relates  to  national  claims  and  in- 
debtedness only  and  not  to  individual  rights  and  claims  of  the  citi- 
zens of  either  republic.  It  is  understood  that  such  individual  claims 
and  rights  as  may  have  had  their  origin  in  occurrence  'anterior  to  the 
third  of  November,  1903,  shall  be  adjusted  in  accordance  with  the 
legislation  of  the  republic  to  which  they  may  be  presented  and  by  the 
tribunals  or  authorities  of  the  same,  so  that  in  no  case  the  claimants 
may  enjoy  greater  privileges  and  advantages  than  the  citizens  of  the 
Republic  against  which  the  claim  is  made. 

Article  V. 

The  Republic  of  Panama  recognizes  it  has  no  title  or  property  in 
the  fifty  thousand  shares  of  capital  stock  of  the  New  Panama  Canal 
Company  standing  on  the  books  of  that  Company  in  Paris  in  the 
name  of  Colombia ;  and  Panama  confirms  the  renunciation  of  all 
claims  and  title  thereto  heretofore  made  by  it  in  legal  proceedings 
pending  in  the  courts  of  France. 

Article  VI. 

The  citizens  of  either  of  the  two  contracting  Republics  residing  in 
the  other  shall  enjoy  the  same  civil  rights  from  time  to  time  as  are 
accorded  by  the  laws  of  the  country  of  their  residence,  respectively,  to 
citizens  of  any  other  nation,  it  being  understood,  however,  that  the 
citizens  of  the  two  republics  residing  in  the  other,  shall  be  exempt 
from  military  service  imposed  upon  the  citizens  of  such  republics. 

Article  VII. 

Both  of  the  contracting  Republics  agree  that  neither  of  them  shall 
admit  to  form  a  part  of  its  nationality  any  portion  of  the  territory  of 
the  other  which  may  separate  from  it  by  force. 

Article  VIII. 

It  is  hereby  agreed  and  declared  by  the  contracting  parties  that  the 
dividing  line  between  the  Republic  of  Colombia  and  the  Republic  of 
Panama  shall  be  that  fixed  as  the  boundary  between  the  States  of 
Panama  and  Cauca  by  the  law  of  New  Granada  of  June  9,  1855,  in 
its  article  7  as  follows :  "  Por  el  Este  desde  el  Cabo  Tiburon  hasta  la 


168  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OP    THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

cabecera  del  rio  de  la  Miel  y  siguiendo  la  cordillera  por  el  cerro  de 
Gandi  a  la  sierra  de  Chugaigun  y  la  de  Mali  a  bajar  por  los  cerros  de 
Nigue  a  los  altos  de  Aspave  y  de  alii  al  Pacifico  entre  Cocalito  y  la 
Ardita." 

Article  IX. 

It  is  expressly  understood  and  agreed  that  the  present  treaty  shall 
not  become  operative  nor  its  provisions  obligatory  upon  either  party 
hereto  until  and  unless  treaties  between  the  Republic  of  Colombia  and 
the  United  States  of  America  and  between  the  United  States  of 
America  and  the  Republic  of  Panama  of  even  date  herewith  are  both 
duly  concluded  and  their  ratifications  are  exchanged  simultaneously 
with  the  exchange  after  ratification  of  the  present  treaty. 

Article  X. 

The  present  treaty  shall  be  submitted  for  ratification  by  the  re- 
spective Governments  and  the  ratifications  shall  be  exchanged  at 
Washington  at  the  earliest  date  possible. 


Colombian  Minister  to  Secretary  Root. 

No.  293.]  Legation  of  Colombia, 

Washington,  January  26, 1908. 

Dear  Sir  :  In  reference  to  my  communications  of  the  20th  and  28th 
of  December  ultimo  and  my  memorandum  of  same  date  accompanying 
a  draft  treaty  with  Panama,  I  have  the  honor  to  inform  your  excel- 
lency that  I  have  received  to-day  a  letter  from  the  minister  of  foreign 
affairs  dated  Bogota,  31st  December,  the  pertinent  part  of  which  I 
beg  to  inclose  in  separate  copy,  both  in  Spanish  and  English. 

In  my  letter  to  you  above  quoted  I  have  mentioned  the  extreme  im- 
portance that  my  Government  gives  to  the  line  of  demarcation  of 
boundaries  with  Panama,  in  accordance  with  the  New  Granada  la's* 
of  9th  June,  1855.  The  letter  from  the  minister  of  foreign  affairs 
herein  referred  to  is,  as  you  will  perceive,  so  explicit  and  conclusive 
in  the  matter  as  to  preclude  my  entertaining  any  stipulation  in  the 
treaty  referring  to  boundaries  other  than  the  recognition  of  our  line. 

Allow  me  to  express  my  hope  that,  joining  efforts,  we  may  come  to 
a  definite  and  satisfactory  agreement  with  Panama  on  this  all-im- 
portant question. 

The  situation  is  such  that  unless  our  line  is  accepted  no  alternative 
would  be  left  to  me  but  to  suspend  the  negotiations.  This  lame  con- 
clusion would  be  a  source  of  great  mortification  to  me  personally, 
and  would  be  compelled  to  adopt  it  with  the  deepest  regret.  I  could 
not  help  it,  however,  in  view  of  my  instructions,  feeling  convinced, 
moreover,  that  a  treaty  without  the  acceptance  of  our  line  would 
have  no  chance  of  its  ratification  by  the  legislative  body  in  Colombia. 

I  have  the  honor  to. present  to  your  excellency  the  expression  of  my 
high  ronsideratinn. 

(Signed)  Enrique  Cortes. 

The  Hon.  Elihu  Root. 

Secretary  of  Statt .  State  Department. 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  169 

[Copy  of  paragraphs  from  a  letter  of  the  minister  of  foreign  affairs  dated  Bogota,  the 

31st  December,  1907.] 

January  26,  1908. 

The  Government  of  Colombia  is  in  an  absolute  impossibility  to  ac- 
cept any  negotiation  with  Panama  which  is  not  based  on  the  total 
recognition  of  the  boundaries  of  the  department  of  Panama,  as  fixed 
by  the  law  of  June,  1855,  of  which  you  have  a  copy.  Any  other  line 
or  any  alteration  whatever  on  the  one  fixed  by  said  law,  no  matter 
how  slight  it  may  be,  would  be  rejected  almost  unanimously  by  the 
public  opinion  in  Colombia,  and  the  Government  believes  that  there 
is  neither  justice  nor  convenience  in  deviating  from  our  right  and 
would  prefer  not  to  enter  into  any  treaty  with  Panama,  rather  than 
doing  it  with  a  line  of  boundaries  differing  from  the  one  above  stated. 

I  call  your  attention  to  a  letter  I  wrote  to  the  El  Correo  Nacional 
newspaper  of  this  city,  dated  25th  November  last,  which  I  suppose 
you  have  seen,  as  it  was  reproduced  by  almost  all  the  Colombian 
newspapers,  in  which,  after  expressing  the  line  of  conduct  of  the 
Government  on  these  important  matters,  I  added,  "  Such  are  the 
ideas  which  rule  the  conduct  of  the  Government  in  the  negotiations 
initiated  by  Dr.  Mendoza  Perez,  and  in  accordance  therewith  would 
not  on  any  consideration  agree  to  the  slightest  alteration  on  the  line 
fixed  by  the  law  of  9th  June,  1855." 

The  above  contains  a  solemn  promise  made  by  the  undersigned  to 
the  Republic,  in  accordance  with  his  excellency  the  president,  and 
the  government  has  the  firm  will  not  to  deviate  from  it.  You  will 
be  good  enough  to  inform  Mr.  Root  of  the  above  at  the  nearest  op- 
portunity you  have. 

If  you  obtain  the  acceptance  of  the  line  stated,  without  alteration, 
this  being  the  only  case  in  which,  as  I  have  mentioned,  the  celebra- 
tion of  a  treaty  with  Panama  is  made  possible,  you  may  accept  defi- 
nite^ the  payment  of  twTo  and  a  half  millions  dollars  in  the  terms 
agreed.  The  Government  of  Colombia  gives  to  the  monetary  ques- 
tion a  greatly  inferior  importance  compared  to  the  question  of 
boundaries. 


Secretary  Root  to  Colombian  minister. 

No.  48.]  January  28,  1908. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  note  of 
the  26th  instant,  in  which  you  refer  to  your  notes  of  December  20 
and  28  last  and  to  your  memorandum  submitting  a  draft  treaty  be- 
tween Colombia  and  Panama,  and  invite  my  attention  to  an  extract 
from  instructions,  dated  December  31  last,  from  the  Colombian  minis- 
ter of  foreign  affairs  to  you,  under  which  instructions  you  are  ad- 
vised that  a  treaty  with  Panama  can  stipulate  no  other  boundaries 
than  those  established  by  the  New  Granada  law  of  June  9,  1855. 

I  have  the  honor  to  say  in  reply  that  it  seems  unnecessary  to  enter 
upon  any  further  consideration  of  the  views  of  the  United  States 
regarding  the  boundary  line  between  Colombia  and  Panama  further 
than  those  contained  in  my  letter  to  you  of  August  26  last. 

The  subject  matter  of  your  note  will  be  communicated  to  Mr. 
Arango  immediately  after  his  arrival  here. 


170  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

Accept,  Mr.  Minister,  the  reneAved  assurance  of  my  highest  con- 
sideration. 

(Signed)  Elihu  Root. 

Sefior  Don  Enrique  Cortes, 

Minister  of  Colombia. 


Secretary  Root  to  Minister  Cortes. 

Department  of  State, 
Washington,  February  18, 1908. 
Sir:  On  Monday  last  I  had  an  interview  with  Mr.  Arango  and 
Mr.  Arosemena,  and  Mr.  Arango  advised  me  that  he  is  instructed  by 
the  Government  of  Panama  to  refuse  assent  to  the  proposed  new 
Article  VIII  of  the  draft  treaty  communicated  with  your  letter  of 
December  28  last,  stipulating  that  the  boundary  between  Colombia 
and  Panama  shall  be  that  described  in  the  act  of  June  9,  1855. 

Mr.  Arango  says,  however,  that  if  the  treaty  were  made  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  protocol  he  would  take  the  responsibility  of  agree- 
ing to  submit  the  question  to  arbitration. 

Accept,  sir,  the  renewed  assurance  of  my  highest  consideration. 

Elihu  Root. 


Minister  of  Colombia  to  Secretary  Root. 

[Translation.] 

No.  293.]  Legation  of  Colombia, 

Washington,  D.  C,  February  19,  1908. 

Mr.  Secretary:  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of 
your  excellency's  obliging  communication,  dated  yesterday,  by  which 
you  are  pleased  to  advise  me  that  at  an  interview  had  with  you  the 
day  before,  Sehor  Arango  declared  to  you  that  he  had  instructions 
from  his  Government  not  to  accept  the  article  I  had  proposed,  under 
No.  VIII,  in  my  draft  of  a  treatv  with  Panama,  which  relates  to 
the  acceptance  by  Panama  of  the  boundary  line  established  by  the 
law  of  June  9,  1855,  of  New  Granada.  Your  excellency  adds  that 
Sehor  Arango  mentioned  in  this  respect  that  if  a  treaty  were  made 
in  accordance  with  the  protocol,  Sehor  Arango  on  his  own  responsi- 
bility promised  to  agree  to  an  arbitration  for  the  settlement  of  the 
boundary  line. 

I  thank  your  excellency  for  that  communication,  which  I  consider 
important,  and  I  should  have  hastened  to  have  the  honor  to  exchange 
views  with  the  Secretary  touching  its  contents  had  I  not  found  myself 
disabled  for  the  present  by  an  attack  of  the  grippe,  which  confined 
me  to  my  room.  But  until  I  may  have  the  opportunity  and  honor 
to  call  on  your  excellency,  I  venture  to  make  one  or  two  remarks 
which  I  believe  pertinent. 

From  the  knowledge  your  department  possesses  of  the  instructions 
I  have  received  from  my  Government  and  by  which  I  must  abide  as 
long  as  they  stand,  the  intimation  of  Sehor  Arango  is  tantamount 
to  an  indefinite  suspension  of  the  negotiations,  since  I  am  inhibited 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE  PANAMA  CANAL.  171 

from  affixing  my  signature  to  any  treaty  in  which  there  be  no  recog- 
nition of  the  said  boundary  by  Panama. 

I  permit  mj^self  to  call  to  your  excellency's  mind  that  since  the 
beginning  of  these  negotiations — that  is,  since  your  excellency's  con- 
ferences with  the  Colombian  minister  of  foreign  relations  at  Carta- 
gena— the  initial  point  of  the  negotiations  has  been  the  friendly 
mediation  of  the  United  States  for  the  purpose  of  bringing  about 
a  convention  between  Colombia  and  Panama  which  would  guarantee 
permanent  friendly  relations  for  the  future  and  the  recognition  of 
Panama's  independence.  The  highest  importance  was  attached  to 
this  intervention  by  my  Government  in  the  belief  that,  without  it, 
the  position  of  Colombia  became  for  obvious  reasons  a  difficult  one. 
The  American  intervention  and  mediation  made  it  Colombia's  duty 
to  assume  an  extremely  conciliatory  and  friendly  attitude.  This, 
I  believe,  is  the  path  I  followed ;  and,  as  your  excellency  will  recall, 
Colombia  in  the  course  of  my  labors  has  endeavored  most  studiously 
to  ward  off  any  incident,  allusion,  or  demand  which  might  impart 
to  the  discussion  the  slightest  feature  of  irritation  or  even  lack  of 
cordiality.  Colombia  went  on  narrowing  and  curtailing  her  claims 
in  a  consistent  effort  not  to  transgress  the  limits  of  the  most  scrupu- 
lous "  compromise,"  and  ever  careful  not  to  ask  of  the  United  States 
anything  but  a  friendly  attitude.  We  were  nearing  this  goal  when 
two  important  incidents  sprang  forth — your  department's  letter  of 
August  26  and  the  excitement  created  by  the  occupation  of  Jurado. 
The  first  as  it  appears  to  me  settled  the  boundary  question  as  far 
as  the  United  States  is  concerned,  and  should,  ipso  facto,  settle  it 
as  far  as  Panama  may  be  concerned.  But  the  second  again  put  the 
question  in  an  acute  phase  and  made  it  necessary  for  Colombia  not 
to  leave  open  a  door  which  might  in  the  future  prove  to  be  a  source 
of  controversy  and  danger. 

Our  demand  that  this  question  be  settled  is  one  of  imperative  im- 
portance. The  dangers  above  alluded  to  are  all  the  more  obvious 
to  me  as  Panama  maintains  her  claims  in  spite  of  the  declaration 
of  the  United  States,  under  date  of  August  26,  based  upon  a  care- 
ful examination  of  the  point  which  would  seem  to  have  been  thereby 
determined. 

Until  I  have  the  honor  to  call  on  your  excellency,  I  permit  myself 
to  call  your  attention  to  the  contents  of  this  letter,  which  I  hope 
will  be  favorably  received. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  Mr.  Secretary,  with  the  highest  and  most 
distinguished  consideration. 

Your  obedient  and  very  humble  servant, 

Enrique  Cortes. 

Mr.  Tap  to  Mr.  Root. 

War  Department, 
Washington.  March  11,  1908. 
My  Dear  Mr.  Root:  I  am  in  receipt  of  a  letter  from  Mr.  Crom- 
well, a  copy  of  which  I  send  for  your  files. 
Sincerely,  vours. 

Wm.  H.  Taft. 


172  diplomatic  history  of  the  panama  canal. 

united  states-panama-colombia  treaties. 

49  and  51  Wall  Street, 
New  York,  March  10, 1908. 
Hon.  William  H.  Taft, 

Secretary  of  War,  Washington,  D.  C. 

My  Dear  Mr.  Secretary:  Referring  to  the  protocol  between  the 
Republic  of  Colombia  and  the  Republic  of  Panama,  exchanged  at 
Washington  on  the  17th  of  August  last  between  the  ministers  of  the 
Governments  mentioned,  and  approved  by  you  in  behalf  of  the 
United  States,  under  the  direction  of  the  President,  I  beg  leave  to 
advise  you  that  since  that  date  the  New  Panama  Canal  Co.  and  the 
Republic  of  Colombia  have  reached  a  satisfactory  adjustment  of 
the  claims  and  interests  of  the  Republic  of  Colombia  in  the  50,000 
shares  of  the  capital  stock  of  the  New  Panama  Canal  Co.  standing 
on  the  books  of  that  company  in  the  name  of  the  Republic  of  Co- 
lombia, and  also  that  the  litigation  instituted  by  the  department  of 
fisc  of  the  Government  of  France  respecting  registration  and  stamp 
duties  has  been  adjusted. 

Under  this  arrangement  there  has  been  paid  to  the  Government  of 
France  7,000,000  francs,  in  satisfaction  of  its  said  claims,  and  the 
canal  company  has  paid  to  the  Government  of  Colombia  direct 
about  4,000,000  francs,  the  balance  upon  the  cash  distribution  appur- 
tenant to  said  50.000  shares. 

This  subject,  therefore,  has  been  adjusted  to  the  satisfaction  of 
all  parties;  the  Republic  of  Colombia  has  received  from  the  canal 
company  the  sum  of  about  $800,000  gold,  and  therefore  there  is  no 
occasion  to  embody  Article  V  in  the  treaty  consummating  the  proto- 
col referred  to. 

I  always  assured  the  President,  Secretary  Root,  and  you  that  we 
would  aid  Colombia  in  getting  the  proceeds  of  these  shares  (part  of 
the  forty  million  payment),  and  you  will  see  that  the  assurance  is 
fulfilled.     It  should  facilitate  the  pending  treaty. 

As  you  may  wish  to  keep  Secretary  Root's  files  complete,  I  inclose 
a  duplicate  hereof  for  the  purpose. 
Respectfully,  yours, 

Wm.  Nelson  Cromwell,  Counsel. 


Colombian  Minister  to  Secretary  Root. 

No.  295.]  Legation  of  Colombia, 

Washington,  D.  C,  March  1%,  1908. 

Sir  :  In  the  matter  of  the  treaties  in  course  between  the  United 
States  and  Colombia  and  Colombia  and  Panama,  I  am  becoming 
rather  anxious,  as  the  time  is  growing  short  and  it  will  require  a  good 
deal  of  attention  and  time.  I  have  therefore  the  honor  to  request  your 
excellency  to  be  good  enough  to  inform  me  if  you  have  been  able  to 
come  to  an  understanding  with  Panama  about  the  matter  of  bound- 
aries as  mentioned  in  my  previous  communications  to  you. 

I  am  ready  to  meet  the  Panama  representatives  and  discuss  the 
matter  with  them  at  any  moment,  but  consider  it  necessary  to  know 
exactlv  what  is  their  final  standing  on  the  matter,  as  the  result  of  the 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTOEY   OF   THE   PANAMA  CANAL.  173 

change  of  ideas  you  have  mentioned  to  me  has  been  in  course  for 
some  time. 

I  beg  likewise  to  remind  your  excellency  that  it  would  be  most  im- 
portant to  have  your  letter  of  disclaimer  from  the  part  of  the  United 
States  in  the  matter  of  a  deposit  made  by  the  new  canal  company  at 
the  London  &  County  Banking  Co.,  London,  within  the  nearest  time, 
as  the  company  will  be  extinguished  on  the  1st  of  April  next. 

Thanking  your  excellency  beforehand,  I  have  the  honor  to  remain. 
Your  obedient,  humble  servant, 

(Signed)  Enrique  Cortes. 


Secretary  Root  to  Minister  of  Colombia. 

No.  53.]  Department  of  State, 

March  17, 1908. 
Sir  :  Referring  to  the  latter  part  of  your  note  of  the  12th  instant, 
I  have  the  honor  to  inclose  a  letter,  of  to-day's  date,  to  the  London 
&  County  Bank,  of  London,  England,  in  which  I  state  that  this  Gov- 
ernment claims  no  interest  in  the  sum  of  750,000  francs,  and  interest 
thereon,  deposited  with  it  in  1878  or  thereabouts  by  Lucien  N.  B. 
Wyse,  under  Article  II  of  his  concession  from  Colombia. 

Accept,  sir,  the  renewed  assurance  of  my  highest  consideration. 

Elihu  Root. 
Inclosure  as  above. 

Department  of  State, 
Washington,  March  17,  1908. 

London  &  County  Banking  Co.  (Ltd.), 

Lombard  Street,  London,  England. 
Gentlemen  :  I  beg  to  state,  with  reference  to  the  sum  of  750,000 
francs  deposited  with  you  in  the  year  1878  or  thereabout,  under  ar- 
ticle second  of  the  concession  granted  by  the  United  States  of  Co- 
lombia to  Lucien  N.  B.  Wyse  for  the  opening  and  operation  of  a 
canal  across  the  Isthmus  of  Panama,  that  the  United  States  claims 
no  interest  in  that  sum  nor  the  interest  thereon. 
Very  truly,  yours, 

Elihu  Root, 
Secretary  of  State. 

Minister  of  Colombia  to  Secretary  Root. 

Legation  of  Colombia, 
Washington,  D.  C,  March  SI.  1008. 

Sir:  As  I  have  had  the  honor  to  inform  you  verbally,  the  Co- 
lombian Government,  in  view  of  the  refusal  of  the  representatives  of 
Panama  to  agree  to  our  line  of  limits,  is  quite  ready  to  proceed  on 
the  basis  of  no  mention  being  made  of  the  boundaries  in  the  treaty 
at  all. 

As  your  excellency  is  aware,  when  the  Colombian  Government  de- 
sired so  earnestly  to  have  the  line  of  limits  of  the  laws  of  June.  1^.V>. 
accepted  by  Panama,  even  when  no  mention  was  made  of  the  matter 


174  DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OP   THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

in  protocol,  the  reason  was  twofold — on  the  one  hand,  that  such 
line  was  accepted  by  the  American  Government;  on  the  other  hand, 
that  we  could  not  avoid  to  occupy  Jurado,  and  that  in  so  doing  it  we 
might  bring  on  a  collision  or  friction  with  Panama  which  might 
affect  the  fate  of  the  treaty. 

As  far  as  I  gather,  such  is  the  position  now,  but  I  am  not  perfectly 
clear  about  the  attitude  of  Panama  and  must  trouble  your  excellency, 
in  prosecution  of  the  role  assumed  by  the  American  Government,  to 
discuss  the  matter  with  the  Panama  representatives. 

No  mention  was  made  in  the  protocol  of  boundaries,  be  it  on  any 
ideal  line  or  on  the  statu  quo ;  we  are  ready  to  carry  on  the  provisions 
of  the  protocol.  Are  the  Panama  representatives  ready  to  proceed 
in  accordance  ?  If  so,  we  might  at  once  arrange  to  carry  on  the  neces- 
sary meetings  together  to  give  shape  to  the  instrument. 

But  I  must  express  the  feeling  of  my  Government  that  if  Panama 
refuses  to  sign  the  treaty  under  the  reason  that  we  intend  to  occupy 
Jurado,  that  is  a  proceeding  at  variance  with  the  lines  of  the  proto- 
col and  which,  in  my  opinion,  is  not  justified. 

In  the  hopes  of  hearing  from  your  excellency  on  this  important 
point,  I  am  happy  to  renew  the  assurance  of  my  highest  considera- 
tion. 

Enrique  Cortes. 


Acting  Secretary  Bacon  to  Colombia?!  Minister. 

Serial  No.  54.]  Department  of  State, 

April  9, 1908. 
Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  note  of 
the  31st  ultimo,  in  which  you  advise  the  department  that  "  the  Co- 
lombian Government,  in  view  of  the  refusal  of  the  representatives  of 
Panama  to  agree  to  our  line  of  limits,  is  quite  ready  to  proceed  on  the 
basis  of  no  mention  being  made  of  the  boundaries  in  the  treaty  at  all." 
I  have  the  honor  to  say  in  reply  that  your  note  will  receive  con- 
sideration. 

Accept,  sir,  the  renewed  assurance  of  my  highest  consideration. 

Robert  Bacon, 
Acting  Secretary. 


American  Charge  to  Secretary  Root. 

No.  174.1  American  Legation, 

Bogota,  October  6,  1908. 
Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  report,  for  the  information  of  the  depart- 
ment, that  in  an  interview  with  Dr.  Urrutia  at  the  ministry  for 
foreign  affairs  this  afternoon  he  informed  me  that  the  Colombian 
Government  had  been  gratified  to  learn,  through  its  own  sources, 
that  the  new  administration  of  Panama  was  disposed  to  meet  the 
Government  of  Colombia  on  the  ground  already  outlined  as  that  ap- 
proved by  the  United  States  in  the  negotiations  now  pending  at 
Washington  for  the  conclusion  of  a  treaty  between  the  two  countries. 
In  Mr.  Dawson's  final  interview  with  the  President,  at  which  both 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  175 

Dr.  Urrutia  and  myself  were  present,  Gen.  Keyes  expressed  great 
anxiety  that  an  amicable  conclusion  to  the  negotiations  between 
Colombia  and  Panama  be  reached  as  soon  as  possible.  To-day  Dr. 
Urrutia  reiterated  this  desire,  adding  that  it  was  hoped  that  the 
negotiations  could  be  ended  by  the  end  of  November. 
I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir, 
Your  obedient  servant, 

(Signed)  Paxton  Hibben, 

Charge  d' 'Affaires  ad  Interim. 


Secretary  Root  to  Minister  Cortes. 

December  29,  1908. 

My  Dear  Mr.  Cortes  :  Mr.  Cromwell  and  myself  passed  the  greater 
part  of  3Testerday  in  examining  carefully,  section  by  section,  the 
protocol  of  the  Colombia-Panama  treaty,  the  draft  for  a  treaty  based 
upon  that  protocol  submitted  by  the  legation  at  Panama  and  trans- 
mitted by  me  to  you  with  my  letter  of  December  17,  1907,  and  your 
counterdraft  for  the  same  treaty  which  you  were  good  enough  to  send 
to  me  with  }rour  letter  of  December  28,  1907. 

Upon  very  careful  consideration  of  all  the  points,  we  worked  out  a 
draft  which  you  will  find  in  the  main  to  agree  with  yours  and  which 
conforms  to  the  protocol,  and  which  we  both  agree  in  recommending 
to  Colombia  and  Panama. 

You  will  observe  that  this  draft,  besides  reproducing  the  provisions 
of  the  protocol,  also  lays  down  the  boundary  line  between  Colombia 
and  Panama,  using  the  same  words  used  by  your  draft  down  to  the 
Heights  of  Espave,  and  thence  provides  that  the  location  of  the  line 
shall  depend  upon  the  determination  of  an  arbitral  tribunal,  which 
shall  pass  upon  the  nationality  of  the  district  of  Jurado.  This  I 
understand  to  be  in  accordance  with  the  informal  arrangement  to 
which  both  the  Government  of  Panama  and  the  Government  of  Co- 
lombia have  expressed  to  me  their  intention  to  agree. 

You  will  note  that  the  arbitral  procedure  provided  for  follows  The 
Hague  Convention  of  1907,  which  the  representatives  of  both 
countries  signed.  You  will  observe,  also,  that  we  have  included  in 
the  draft  the  provision  regarding  which  you  have  several  times 
spoken  to  me,  under  which  individual  claims  against  either  country 
are  to  be  determined  in  accordance  with  the  legislation  of  the  Eepublic 
against  which  the}7  are  presented. 

Of  course,  any  approval  of  this  instrument  by  any  one  of  us  is 
dependent  upon  the  satisfactory  formulation  of  the  other  cognate 
instruments  to  which  Mr.  Cromwell  and  myself  propose  to  imme- 
diately address  ourselves. 

May  I  ask  for  an  early  expression  of  your  views  as  to  whether  the 
inclosed  draft  is  satisfactory  to  the  Eepublic  of  Colombia  ? 

With  kind  regards,  I  am, 
Very  sincerely,  yours, 

Elihu  Koot. 

Inclosure:  Draft  as  above. 

Between  Republic  of  Colombia  and  Republic  of  Pom  nun. — The 
Eepublic  of  Colombia  and  the  Eepublic  of  Panama,  equally  animated 


176  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

by  the  desire  to  remove  all  obstacles  to  their  good  understanding,  to 
adjust  their  pecuniary  and  other  relations  to  each  other,  and  to 
mutually  secure  the  benefits  of  amity  and  accord,  have  determined 
to  conclude  a  convention  for  these  purposes,  and  therefore  have  ap- 
pointed as  their  respective  plenipotentiaries;  that  is  to  say: 

The  President  of  the  Republic  of  Colombia,  Enrique  Cortes,  envoy 
extraordinary  and  minister  plenipoteniary  of  the  Republic  of  Co- 
lombia, and 

The  President  of  the  Republic  of  Panama,  Carlos  Constantino 
Arosemena,  envoy  extraordinary  and  minister  plenipotentiary  of  the 
Republic  of  Panama;  who,  after  having  communicated  to  each  other 
their  respective  full  powers  found  in  good  and  due  form,  have  agreed 
upon  and  concluded  the  following  articles: 

ARTICLE  I. 

Recognition  of  independence. — The  Republic  of  Colombia  recog- 
nizes the  independence  of  the  Republic  of  Panama  and  acknowledges 
it  to  be  a  free,  sovereign,  and  independent  nation  as  of  the  3d  day  of 
November,  1903. 

ARTICLE  II. 

Declarations  of  amity. — There  shall  be  a  mutual  and  inviolable 
peace  and  friendship  between  the  Government  of  Colombia  and  its 
citizens  on  the  one  part  and  the  Government  of  the  Republic  of 
Panama  and  its  citizens  on  the  other  part,  without  exception  of  per- 
sons or  places  under  their  respective  dominion. 

ARTICLE  III. 

Pecuniary  relations;  transfer  of  certain  installments;  indemnifica- 
tion of  Panama  against  external  and  internal  indebtedness. — The 
Republic  of  Panama  assigns  and  transfers  to  the  Republic  of  Colom- 
bia and  its  assigns  and  nominees,  in  lawful  and  due  form,  the  10 
first  annual  installments  of  $250,000  gold  coin  each  becoming  due  to 
it,  iha  Republic  of  Panama,  from  the  United  States  of  America  on 
the  26th  clay  of  February  in  the  years  1908  to  1917.. both  inclusive, 
under  and  pursuant  to  the  provisions  of  Article  XIV  of  the  treaty 
between  the  United  States  of  America  and  the  Republic  of  Panama 
exchanged  February  26,  1904,  and  under  and  pursuant  to  the  amend- 
ment thereof,  embodied  in  a  treaty  of  even  date  between  said  nations, 
whereby  said  Article  XIV  is  amended  by  substituting  the  words 
"  four  years  "  for  the  words  "  nine  years,"  so  that  the  first  annual 
payment  of  which  that  article  treats  shall  begin  four  years  from  the 
exchange  of  said  treaty  of  February  26,  1904,  instead  of  nine  years 
from  said  date,  in  such  manner  that  the  said  installments  shall  be 
paid  by  the  United  States  of  America  directly  to  the  Republic  of 
Colombia  or  its  assigns  and  nominees  for  account  of  the  Republic 
of  Panama,  in  lawful  and  due  form,  beginning  the  26th  day  of 
February,  1908.  Such  installments  as  may  have  matured  when  the 
ratifications  of  this  treaty  shall  be  exchanged  pursuant  to  its  terms 
shall  be  payable  on  the  thirtieth  day  after  the  date  of  such  exchange. 

In  consideration  of  the  payments  and  releases  which  the  Republic  of 
Panama  makes  to  the  Republic  of  Colombia,  the  latter  recognizes 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  177 

and  agrees  that  the  Republic  of  Panama  has  no  liability  upon  and 
no  obligations  to  the  holders  of  the  external  and  internal  debt  of 
Colombia  nor  to  the  Republic  of  Colombia  by  reason  of  any  such 
indebtedness  of  claims.  Colombia  recognizes  and  agrees  that  it  is 
itself  solely  obligated  for  such  external  and  internal  debt;  assumes 
the  obligation  to  pay  and  discharge  the  same  by  itself  alone;  and 
agrees  to  indemnify  and  hold  harmless  the  Republic  of  Panama, 
should  occasion  arise,  from  any  liability  and  expense  in  respect  of 
such  external  and  internal  indebtedness. 

ARTICLE  IV. 

Mutual  exoneration. — Each  of  the  contracting  Republics  releases 
and  discharges  the  other  from  all  pecuniary  claims  and  obligations 
of  any  nature  whatever,  including  the  external  and  internal  debt  of 
Colombia,  which  either  had  against  the  other  on  the  3d  day  of  Novem- 
ber, 1003,  it  being  understood  that  this  reciprocal  exoneration  re- 
lates only  to  the  national  debts  and  claims  of  one  against  the  other, 
and  that  it  does  not  relate  to  individual  rights  and  claims  of  the 
citizens  of  either  Republic.  It  is  understood  that  such  individual 
rights  and  claims  which  originated  in  incidents  occurring  previous 
to  the  3d  day  of  November,  1003,  shall  be  decided  in  accordance  with 
the  legislation  of  the  Republic  against  which  they  are  presented  and 
by  the  tribunals  or  authorities  of  the  same,  so  that  in  no  case  shall 
the  claimant  enjoy  greater  privileges  or  advantages  than  the  citizens 
of  the  Republic  against  which  the  demand  is  made. 

ARTICLE  V. 

Confirmation  by  Panama  of  its  abandonment  of  any  claim  to. — The 
Republic  of  Panama  recognizes  that  it  has  no  title  or  ownership  of 
any  sort  to  the  50,000  shares  of  the  capital  stock  of  the  New  Panama 
Canal  Co.,  standing  in  the  name  of  the  Republic  of  Colombia  on  the 
books  of  said  company  at  Paris,  and  the  Republic  of  Panama  con- 
firms the  abandonment  of  all  right  and  title,  which,  with  respect  to 
said  shares,  it  made  in  the  courts  of  justice  of  France. 

ARTICLE  VI. 

Rights  of  citizens. — The  citizens  of  each  Republic  residing  in  the 
territory  of  the  other  shall  enjoy  the  same  civil  rights  which  from 
time  to  time  are  accorded  by  the  laws  of  the  country  of  resi- 
dence to  the  citizens  of  the  most  favored  nation.  It  being  under- 
stood, however,  that  the  citizens  of  either  of  the  two  Republics  re- 
siding in  the  other  shall  be  exempt  from  military  services  imposed 
upon  the  citizens  of  such  Republic. 

Citizens  of  Panama  who  shall  prefer  to  remain  in  the  territory 
of  the  Republic  of  Colombia  may  either  retain  the  title  and  rights 
of  citizens  of  Panama  or  acquire  those  of  citizens  of  Colombia,  and, 
reciprocally,  citizens  of  Colombia  who  shall  prefer  to  remain  in  the 
territory  of  the  Republic  of  Panama  may  either  retain  the  title  and 
lights  of  citizens  of  Colombia  or  acquire  those  of  citizens  of  Panama. 
But  they  shall  be  under  the  obligation  to  make  their  election  before 

42112— S.  Doc.  474,  63-2 12 


178  DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

the  proper  authorities  within  one  year  from  the  date  of  the  exchange 
of  ratifications  of  this  treaty ;  and  those  who  remain  in  the  said 
territory  after  the  expiration  of  that  year  without  having  declared 
their  election  shall  be  considered  as  having  elected  to  become  citizens 
of  the  country  where  they  reside. 

The  natives  of  the  country  of  either  of  the  two  contracting  Re- 
publics who  have  heretofore  or  shall  hereafter  become  citizens  by 
naturalization  in  the  other  Republic  shall  not  be  punished,  molested, 
or  discriminated  against  by  the  Government  of  the  country  of  which 
they  were  natives,  or  by  the  citizens  thereof,  by  reason  of  their  acts 
of  adhesion  to  the  country  whose  citizenship  they  have  adopted. 

ARTICLE    VII. 

Neither  nation  shall  annex  territory  of  the  other. — Both  Republics 
agree,  each  for  itself,  that  neither  of  them  shall  admit  to  form  any  part 
of  its  nationality  any  part  of  the  territory  of  the  other  which  separates 
from  it  by  force. 

ARTICLE   VIII. 

Nt  gotiations  to  be  conducted  for  treaty  of  commerce,  etc. — As  soon 
as  this  treaty  and  the  contemporaneous  treaty  of  even  date  between 
the  United  States  of  America  and  the  Republic  of  Panama  and  be- 
tween the  United  States  of  America  and  the  Republic  of  Colombia 
shall  be  ratified  and  exchanged,  negotiations  shall  be  entered  upon 
between  the  Republics  of  Panama  and  Colombia  for  the  conclusion 
of  additional  treaty  or  treaties,  covering  questions  of  commerce, 
postal,  telegraph,  copyright,  consular  relations,  extradition  of  crimi- 
nals, and  the  like. 

ARTICLE  IX. 

It  is  agreed  between  the  high  contracting  parties,  and  is  declared, 
that  the  dividing  line  between  the  Republic  of  Colombia  and  the 
Republic  of  Panama  shall  be  as  follows,  to-wit : 

From  Cape  Tiburon,  on  the  Atlantic,  to  the  headwaters  of  the 
Rio  de  la  Miel,  and  following  the  range  by  the  Cerro  de  Gandi  to  the 
Sierra  de  Chugargun  and  that  of  Mali,  going  down  by  the  Cerros  of 
Nique  to  the  heights  of  Espave.  and  from  there  to  the  Pacific  at  such 
point  and  by  such  line  as  shall  be  determined  by  the  tribunal  of  arbi- 
tration hereinafter  provided,  and  the  determination  of  said  line  shall 
conform  to  the  decision  of  the  tribunal  of  arbitration  in  respect  of 
the  title  and  limits  of  the  district  or  corregimiento  of  Jurado,  as 
next  provided. 

As  to  the  district  or  corregimiento  of  Jurado,  the  boundaries  and 
attribution  of  which  to  either  the  Republic  of  Colombia  or  the  Re- 
public of  Panama  will  be  fixed  by  the  determination  of  the  line  afore- 
said by  said  tribunal  of  arbitration,  the  title  thereto  and  the  precise 
limits  thereof  and  the  right  to  the  sovereignty  thereof  as  between  the 
high  contracting  parties  shall  be  conclusively  determined  by  arbitra- 
tion in  the  following  manner: 

Section  1.  A  tribunal  of  arbitration  shall  be  created  to  investigate 
and  determine  all  questions  of  fact  and  law  concerning  the  rights  of 
the  high  contracting  parties  to  all  the  territory  in  the  above-men- 
tioned'resrion  of  Jurado.     The  tribunal  shall  consist  of  three  mem- 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA   CANAL.  179 

bers;  the  Republic  of  Colombia  shall  nominate  one  member,  the  Re- 
public of  Panama  shall  nominate  one  member,  both  of  whom  shall 
be  nominated  within  three  months  after  the  exchange  of  ratifications 
of  this  treaty,  and  the  two  members  of  the  tribunal  thus  nominated 
shall  jointly  nominate  a  third  member,  or,  in  the  event  of  their  failure 
to  agree  within  three  months  next  after  the  appointment  of  the  last 
of  them  and  on  request  of  the  President  of  either  of  the  high  con- 
tracting parties,  the  third  member  of  the  tribunal  shall  be  appointed 
by  the  President  of  the  Republic  of  Peru. 

The  tribunal  shall  hold  its  sessions  at  such  place  as  the  tribunal 
shall  determine. 

The  case  on  behalf  of  each  party,  with  the  papers  and  documents, 
shall  be  communicated  to  the  other  party  within  three  months  after 
the  appointment  of  the  third  member  of  the  tribunal. 

The  counter  cases  shall  be  similarly  communicated,  with  the  papers 
and  documents,  within  three  months  after  communication  of  the 
cases,  respectively. 

And  within  two  months  after  communication  of  the  counter  case 
the  other  party  may  communicate  its  reply. 

The  proceedings  of  the  tribunal  shall  be  governed  by  the  provi- 
sions, so  far  as  applicable,  of  the  convention  for  the  pacific  settle- 
ment of  international  disputes  signed  at  The  Hague  by  the  represen- 
tatives of  both  the  parties  hereto  on  the  18th  day  of  October,  1907. 

The  tribunal  shall  take  into  consideration  all  relevant  laws  and 
treaties  and  all  facts  proved  of  occupancy,  possession,  and  political 
or  administrative  control  in  respect  of  the  territory  in  dispute. 

article  x. 

This  treaty  conditional  upon  exchange  of  treaties  of  even  date  be- 
ta-e  en  United,  States  and  Colombia  and  United  States  and  Panama. — 
This  treaty  shall  not  be  binding  upon  either  of  the  high  contracting 
parties  nor  have  any  force  until  and  unless  the  treaty  signed  on  this 
same  date  between  the  Republic  of  Panama  and  the  United  States 
of  America  and  between  the  Republic  of  Colombia  and  the  United 
States  of  America  are  both  duly  ratified  and  ratification  thereof  ex- 
changed simultaneously  with  the  exchange  of  the  ratification  of  this 
treaty. 

ARTICLE  XI. 

Ratification  and  exchange. — The  present  treaty  shall  be  submitted 
for  ratification  to  the  respective  Governments,  and  ratifications  hereof 
exchanged  at  Washington  as  soon  as  possible. 

In  faith  whereof  we,  the  respective  plenipotentiaries,  have  signed 
the  present  treaty  in  triplicate,  in  the  English  and  Spanish  languages, 
and  have  hereunto  affixed  our  respective  seals. 

Done  at  the  city  of  Washington  the  day  of .  in 

the  year  of  our  Lord  1908. 


Secretary  Root  to  Colombian  Minister. 

Department  of  State, 

December  30,  1908. 
My  Dear  Mr.  Cortes:  I  send  you  herewith,  for  your  consideration, 
a  draft  for  the  treaty  between  the  United  States  and  Colombia,  which 


180  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

I  think  accords  with  the  views  which  I  have  already  expressed.    May 
I  ask  your  early  consideration  thereof? 

I  am  expecting  to  conclude  with  Mr.  Cromwell  this  afternoon  the 
draft  treaty  between  the  United  States  and  Panama,  which  we  will 
unite  in  recommending.  In  that  case  the  next  step  will  be  the  ex- 
pression of  your  views  upon  the  two  treaties,  the  drafts  of  which 
you  now  have  before  you.  I  have  been  urging  upon  the  representa- 
tive of  Panama,  with  all  the  earnestness  possible,  the  very  great  im- 
portance of  not  losing  a  day  in  bringing  this  matter  to  a  conclusion, 
so  that  I  may  be  able  to  present  the  group  of  treaties  to  the  Senate 
of  the  United  States  during  the  short  period  of  my  remaining  service 
in  the  State  Department. 

With  kind  regards, 

Very  sincerely,  yours,  Elihu  Root. 


The  United  States  of  America  and  the  Republic  of  Colombia 
being  equally  animated  by  the  desire  to  remove  all  obstacles  to  a 
good  understanding  between  them  and  to  facilitate  the  settlement 
of  the  questions  heretofore  pending  between  Colombia  and  Panama 
by  adjusting  at  the  same  time  the  relations  of  Colombia  to  the 
canal  which  the  United  States  is  now  constructing  across  the  Is- 
thmus of  Panama,  have  resolved  to  conclude  a  treaty  and  to  that 
end  have  appointed  as  their  plenipotentiaries: 

The  President  of  the  United  States  of  America,  Elihu  Root,  Sec- 
retary of  State  of  the  United  States ; 

The  President  of  the  Republic  of  Colombia,  Sefior  Don  Enrique 
Cortes,  envoy  extraordinary  and  minister  plenipotentiary  at  Wash- 
ington ; 

Who,  after  communicating  to  each  other  their  respective  full 
powers,  which  were  found  to  be  in  due  and  proper  form,  have  agreed 
upon  the  following  articles: 

Article  I. 

There  shall  be  mutual  and  inviolable  peace  and  sincere  friendship 
between  the  Governments  and  peoples  of  the  two  high  contracting 
parties  without  exception  of  persons  or  places  under  their  respective 
dominion. 

Article  II. 

The  Republic  of  Colombia  shall  have  liberty  at  all  times  to  convey 
through  the  ship  canal  now  in  course  of  construction  by  the  United 
States  across  the  Isthmus  of  Panama  the  troops,  materials  for  war, 
and  ships  of  war  of  the  Republic  of  Colombia  without  paying  any 
duty  to  the  United  States;  even  in  the  case  of  an  international  war 
between  Colombia  and  another  country. 

While  the  said  interoceanic  canal  is  in  course  of  construction,  the 
troops  and  materials  for  war  of  the  Republic  of  Colombia,  even  in 
the  case  of  an  international  war  between  Colombia  and  any  other 
country,  shall  be  transported  on  the  railway  between  Ancon  and 
Christobal,  or  on  any  other  railway  substituted  therefor,  upon  the 
same  conditions  on  which  similar  service  is  rendered  to  the  United 
States. 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  181 

The  officers,  agents  and  employees  of  the  Government  of  Colombia 
shall,  during  the  same  period,  be  entitled  to  free  passage  upon  the 
said  railway  across  the  Isthmus  of  Panama  upon  due  notification 
to  the  railway  officials  and  the  production  of  evidence  of  their  offi- 
cial character. 

The  foregoing  provisions  of  this  article  shall  not,  however,  apply 
in  case  of  war  between  Colombia  and  Panama. 

Article  III. 

The  products  of  the  soil  and  industry  of  the  Republic  of  Colombia, 
such  as  provisions,  cattle,  etc.,  shall  be  admitted  to  entry  in  the 
Canal  Zone  free  of  any  special  duty,  with  the  exception  of  the 
duties  paid  on  similar  products  of  the  United  States  of  America 
under  similar  conditions. 

Colombian  laborers  employed  in  the  Canal  Zone  during  the  con- 
struction of  the  canal,  who  may  desire  that  their  own  families  supply 
them  with  provisions  for  their  personal  use,  shall  be  entitled  to  have 
such  provisions  admitted  to  the  Canal  Zone  for  delivery  to  them 
free  of  any  duty,  provided  that  declaration  thereof  shall  first  have 
been  made  before  the  commissary  officers  of  the  Isthmian  Canal 
Commission,  in  order  to  obtain  the  previous  permit  for  such  entry, 
and  subject  to  such  reasonable  regulations  as  shall  be  prescribed  by 
the  commission  for  insuring  the  bona  fides  of  the  transaction. 

Article  IV. 

Colombian  mails  shall  have  free  passage  through  the  Canal  Zone 
and  through  the  post  offices  of  Ancon  and  Christobal  in  the  Canal 
Zone,  paying  only  such  duties  or  charges  as  are  paid  by  the  mails 
of  the  United  States. 

During  the  construction  of  the  canal,  Colombian  products  passing 
over  the  Isthmian  railway  from  and  to  Colombian  ports  shall  be 
transported  at  the  lowest  rates  which  are  charged  for  similar  prod- 
ucts of  the  United  States  passing  over  said  railway  to  and  from 
the  ports  of  the  United  States;  and  sea  salt,  exclusively  produced 
in  Colombia,  passing  from  the  Atlantic  coast  of  Colombia  to  any 
Colombian  port  on  the  Pacific  coast,  shall  be  transported  over  said 
railway  free  of  any  charge  except  the  actual  cost  of  handling  and 
transportation. 

Article  V. 

The  United  States  recognizes  and  accepts  notice  of  the  assignment 
by  Panama  to  Colombia  of  the  right  to  receive  from  the  United  States 
payment  of  $2.~)0.000  in  gold  in  each  year  from  the  year  1909  to  the 
year  1918.  inclusive,  upon  the  recognition  of  the  independence  of 
Panama  by  Colombia  and  the  release  of  Panama  from  obligation  for 
the  payment  of  any  part  of  the  external  and  internal  debt  of  Colombia 
'in  manner  and  form  as  contained  in  the  treaty  between  Colombia 
and  Panama  bearing  even  date  herewith. 

Article  VI. 

The  Republic  of  Colombia  grants  to  the  United  States  the  use  of 
all  the  ports  of  the  Republic  open  to  commerce  as  places  of  refuge 


182  DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

for  any  vessels  employed  in  the  canal  enterprise  and  for  all  vessels  in 
distress  passing  or  bound  to  pass  through  the  canal  and  seeking  shel- 
ter or  anchorage  in  said  ports.  Such  vessels  shall  be  exempt  from 
anchorage  or  tonnage  dues  on  the  part  of  Colombia.  And  the  Re- 
public of  Colombia  renounces  in  favor  of  the  United  States  of  Amer- 
ica all  rights,  interests,  reversionary  rights  and  titles,  together  with 
all  claims  whatever  in  connection  with  any  concession  heretofore 
granted  by  it.  or  in  connection  with  any  contract  made  and  entered 
into  at  any  time  between  it  and  any  corporation,  company,  or  person 
connected  with  or  relating  to  the  construction,  maintenance,  and 
operation  of  a  canal  or  railway  across  the  Isthmus  of  Panama,  or  in 
connection  with  such  canal  or  railway;  and  all  claims  whatsoever 
that  have  or  can  be  asserted  against  the  United  States  of  America 
arising  out  of  or  in  connection  with  the  construction,  maintenance, 
and  operation  of  an  interoceanic  canal  across  the  Isthmus  of  Panama 
by  the  United  States  of  America. 

Article  VII. 

As  soon  as  practicable  after  the  exchange  of  ratifications  of  this 
treaty  and  the  contemporaneous  treaties  of  even  date  herewith  be- 
tween the  United  States  of  America  and  the  Republic  of  Panama, 
and  the  Republic  of  Colombia  and  the  Republic  of  Panama,  the 
United  States  of  America  and  the  Republic  of  Colombia  will  enter 
into  negotiations  for  the  revision  of  the  treaty  of  peace,  amity,  navi- 
gation, and  commerce  between  the  United  States  of  America  and  the 
Republic  of  New  Grenada,  concluded  on  the  12th  day  of  December, 
1846,  with  a  view  to  making  the  provisions  therein  contained  con- 
form to  existing  conditions. 

Article  VIII. 

This  treaty,  duly  signed  by  the  high  contracting  parties,  shall  be 
ratified  by  each  according  to  its  respective  laws,  and  the  ratifications 
thereof  shall  be  exchanged  at  Washington  as  soon  as  possible. 

But  it  is  understood  that  such  ratifications  are  not  to  be  exchanged, 
or  the  provisions  of  this  treaty  made  obligatory  upon  either  party 
until  and  unless  the  aforesaid  treaties  between  the  United  States  of 
America  and  the  Republic  of  Colombia,  and  between  the  United 
States  of  America  and  the  Republic  of  Panama,  bearing  even  date 
herewith,  have  been  duly  concluded,  and  the  ratifications  of  such 
treaties  are  duly  exchanged  simultaneously  with  the  exchange  of 
ratifications  of  this  treaty. 


Colombian  Minister  to  Secretary  Root. 

No.  495.]  Legation  or  Colombia, 

Washington,  D.  C,  December  31, 1908. 
Dear  Sir  :  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  receipt  of  your  letter, 
dated  the  29th  instant,  which  reached  my  hands  yesterday  morning, 
covering  copy  of  the  terms  agreed  between  you  and  Mr.  Cromwell 
for  a  treaty  between  Colombia  and  Panama. 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA   CANAL.  183 

I  thank  you,  very  much,  for  your  action  in  the  matter,  and.  the  at- 
tention given  to  my  remarks  and  desires. 

I  find  the  draft  acceptable  on  the  whole,  a  few  points  of  small  im- 
portance, however,  require,  in  my  opinion,  to  be  altered  in  a  manner 
which  I  consider  acceptable  for  mutual  benefit.  I  inclose  a  sheet 
covering  the  said  points  which  I  commend  to  your  kind  consideration. 

I  beg  to  remain,  sir, 
Sincerely,  yours, 

Enrique  Cortes. 

(Received  from  Mr.  Cortes,  January  2,  1909.) 


Legacion  de  Colombia, 
Washington,  D.  C,  December  31,  1908. 
The   Colombian   minister   respectfully    offers   the   following   sug- 
gestions  in   reference   to   the   draft   treaty   between   Colombia   and 
Panama,  which  the  honorable  Secretary  of  State  inclosed  in  his  let- 
ter of  the  29th  instant : 

Article  I. 

Accepted,  suppressing  the  words  "  as  to  the  3d  day  of  November, 
1903,"  which  do  not  appear  in  the  protocol,  substituting  them  by  the 
words,  "  as  to  the  26th  February,  1904,"  date  in  which  the  treaty  be- 
tween the  United  States  and  Panama,  guaranteeing  its  independence, 
was  proclaimed  by  the  President  of  the  United  States. 

The  reasons  are  obvious.  They  pertain  to  certain  consideration  for 
Colombia's  feeling,  and  to  a  historical  event  which  built  the  founda- 
tions for  the  independence  of  Panama. 

Article  II. 
Accepted. 

Article  III. 

Accepted,  suppressing  the  words  "  and  expenses,"  in  the  penulti- 
mate line  of  the  article.  My  reason  is  that  the  obligation  of  absolute 
release  incidentally  may  include  expenses,  while  these  words  by  them- 
selves may  give  rise  by  its  vagueness  to  confusion  and  petty  complica- 
tions. 

Article  IV. 
Accepted. 

Article  V. 
Accepted. 

Article  VI. 

Accepted,  but  between  the  first  and  second  paragraphs  to  insert 
a  new  one,  as  follows: 

Citizens  of  Panama  who  shall  prefer  to  remain  in  the  territory  of  the  Re- 
public of  Colombia  may  either  retain  the  title  and  rights  of  citizens  of  Panama 
or  acquire  those  of  citizens  of  Colombia;  and.  reciprocally,  citizens  of  Colombia 
'who  shall  prefer  to  remain  in  the  territory  of  the  Republic  of  Panama  may 
either  retain  the  title  and  rights  of  citizens  of  Colombia  or  acquire  those  of  citi- 
zens of  Panama.  But  they  shall  be  under  the  obligation  to  make  their  election 
before  the  proper  authorities  within  one  year  from  the  date  of  the  exchange 


184  DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY  OF   THE  PANAMA  CANAL. 

of  ratification  of  this  treaty;  and  those  who  remain  in  the  said  territories  after 
the  expiration  of  that  year,  without  having  declared  their  election,  shall  be  con- 
sidered as  having  elected  to  become  citizens  of  the  country  where  they  reside. 

This  stipulation,  although  not  contemplated  in  the  protocol,  is 
for  the  obvious  mutual  benefit  of  the  contracting  parties. 

In  the  second  original  paragraph,  beginning  with  the  words  "  The 
natives,"  I  find  in  the  sixth  line  thereof  the  words  "  or  by  the  citizens 
thereof,"  which,  in  my  opinion,  impose  on  the  parties  a  rather  diffi- 
cult obligation  to  fulfill.  A  Government  may  assume  the  obligation 
to  punish  the  guilty  parties  to  a  crime,  but  could  not  guarantee  that 
the  commission  of  a  crime  shall  not  be  attempted. 

Article  VIII. 
Accepted. 

Article  IX. 

The  article  requires  an  explanation. 

Whenever  in  my  various  interviews  with  Mr.  Boot  the  question  of 
Jurado  was  mentioned  or  discussed,  no  mention  was  ever  made  of 
Correjimiento,  district  or  province,  which  might  comprise  a  wider 
region  than  the  village  (Oaserio-aldea)  and,  naturally,  its  surround- 
ing commons.  When  the  said  village  was  occupied  by  Colombian 
authorities  in  the  early  part  of  1907  the  same  limitation  characterized 
our  conversations,  so  that  when  the  appeal  to  arbitration  was  sug- 
gested I  readily  gave  my  acquiescence,  with  the  proviso,  never 
omitted  when  the  subject  was  treated,  that  said  arbitration  should 
refer  exclusively  to  the  possession  of  Jurado  by  itself.  Mr.  Root, 
in  my  opinion,  was  fully  aware  that  such  was  my  idea,  since  I  find 
in  the  report  of  the  minister  of  foreign  affairs  of  Panama  for  1908 
a  quotation  from  a  letter  of  Mr.  Root  to  the  said  minister  refusing 
to  exercise  against  Colombia  the  guaranty  of  independence  of 
Panama  when  Jurado  was  occupied.  I  quote  the  following  pas- 
sage (I  translate  from  the  Spanish)  : 

In  special  reference  to  the  small  territory  included  under  the  denomination 
of  Jurado,  this  Government  is  inclined  to  believe  that  the  true  boundaries  be- 
tween Panama  and  Colombia  are  those  described  in  the  law  of  New  Granada 
of  9  June,  1855. 

This  being  so,  the  rights  of  Jurado  seem  to  depend  on  the  position  of  the 
village  (pueblo)  and  its  jurisdiction  accordance  to  the  line  of  1S55. 

In  view  of  the  letter  of  Sefior  Arango,  dated  13  April.  1908,  to  wit:  That  the 
rights  of  Panama  over  the  village  of  Jurado  and  its  jurisdictional  boundaries 
rest  on  tacts  and  considerations  which  are  not  comprised  in  the  dispute  between 
Colombia  and  Panama  ahum  the  general  line  of  boundaries  *  *  *  how- 
ever, tins  Government  is  convinced,  by  the  verbal  communications  exchanged  on 
the  subject,  that  the  Government  of  Colombia  would  be  desirous  to  go  to  an 
arbitration  relating  to  its  title  over  Jurado,  provided  that  the  general  line  of 
limits  between  the  two  countries,  except  in  reference  to  Jurado,  be  accepted 
as  described  in  the  law  of  1S55. 

My  mind  has  been  all  the  time  to  submit  to  arbitration  the  point 
about  the  possession  of  Jurado  by  itself,  meaning  the  village  of  that 
name. 

Xo  mention  was  ever  made  of  Corregimiento  district  or  any  other 
political  division. 

In  view  of  the  above  considerations,  and  moreover  that  as  far  as  I 
know  the  Corregimiento  of  Jurado  is  a  rather  vague  designation,  with 
uncertain  limits  and  difficult  to  find  on  any  map  that  has  come  to  my 
cognizance,  I  venture  to  suggest  the  following: 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  185 

(A)  That  all  mention  in  Article  IX  of  district  of  Correjimiento  de 
Jurado  be  omitted,  as  neither  being  elements  that  have  ever  been 
taken  into  account  in  our  view  and  discussions  about  the  arbitration 
of  Jurado. 

Leaving  out  these  words,  Article  IX  should  be  worded  as  follows: 

It  is  agreed  between  the  high  contracting  parties  and  is  declared 
that  the  dividing  line  between  the  Republic  of  Colombia  and  the 
Eepublic  of  Panama  shall  be  as  follows,  to  wit : 

From  Cape  Tiburon  on  the  Atlantic  to  the  head  waters  of  the  Rio 
de  la  Miel,  and  following  the  range  by  the  Cerro  de  Ganclia  to  the 
Sierra  de  Chugargun  and  that  of  Mali,  going  down  by  the  Cerros 
of  Nique  to  the  heights  of  Espave,  and  from  there  to  the  Pacific  at 
such  point  and  by  such  line  as  shall  be  determined  by  the  tribunal 
of  arbitration  hereinafter  provided,  and  the  determination  of  said 
line  shall  conform  to  the  decision  of  the  tribunal  of  arbitration  as 
next  provided. 

As  to  the  territory  submitted  to  arbitration,  the  boundaries  and 
attribution  of  which  to  either  the  Republic  of  Colombia  or  the 
Republic  of  Panama  will  be  fixed  by  the  determination  of  the  line 
aforesaid  by  said  tribunal  of  arbitration,  the  title  thereto  and  the 
precise  limits  thereof,  and  the  right  to  the  sovereignty  thereof  as 
between  the  high  contracting  parties  shall  be  conclusively  deter- 
mined by  arbitration  in  the  following  manner :  The  rest  of  the  article 
as  appears  in  the  original. 

What  would  be  the  result  ? 

The  result  would  be  that  the  labor  of  the  tribunal  of  arbitration 
would  have  as  its  broad  task  to  define  the  line  between  the  Altos  de 
Espave  and  the  Pacific,  but  without  excluding  a  great  deal  of  lati- 
tude, facilitating  the  labor  and  opening  the  way  for  a  friendly 
understanding,  in  which,  while  not  binding  them  to  find  out  and  dis- 
criminate the  boundaries  of  the  Corregimiento,  a  hard  task  in  those 
deserts,  does  not  exclude  the  taking  into  consideration  all  points 
which  may  enlighten  their  minds,  as  provided  in  the  last  paragraph 
of  this  article,  in  these  words : 

The  tribunal  shall  take  into  consideration  aU  relevant  laws  and  treaties 
and  all  facts  proved  of  occupancy,  possession,  or  political  or  administrative 
control  in  respect  of  the  territory  in  dispute. 

I  must  mention  that  I  have  instructions  to  accept  in  case  of  a  simi- 
lar eventuality  the  Government  of  Chile  or  Brazil  or  their  repre- 
sentatives in  this  country  to  designate  the  umpire  and  venture  to 
suggest  that  it  be  so  altered. 

[Copy  of  letter  sent  from  Secretary's  house.] 

Department  of  State, 
Washington,  January  1, 1909. 
Dear  Mr.  Cortez  :  I  find  on  reading  over  the  project  for  the 
United  States-Colombia  treaty  which  I  sent  you  recently  that  the 
first  clause  of  Article  III  ought  to  be  qualified  to  prevent  a  possible 
inference  that  the  United  States  means  to  grant  more  than  it  may 
itself  possess,  and  for  that  purpose  I  propose  the  addition  at  the 
end  of  the  clause,  after  the  words  "  similar  conditions."  the  words 
"  so  far  as  the  United  States  of  America  has  any  right  or  authority 
to  fix  the  conditions  of  such  importations." 


186  DIPLOMATIC   HISTOEY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

I  think  also  that  there  would  be  clanger  of  a  misunderstanding  from 
the  use  of  the  word  "  free,"  which  might  be  troublesome  to  all 
parties  and  injurious  to  Colombians  who  might  not  know  that 
United  States  products  pay  duties  under  all  ordinary  circumstances 
and  are  not  free.  To  prevent  this  I  think  we  should  substitute  the 
words  "  subject  only  to  such  duty  as  would  be  payable  "  on  similar 
products  of  the  United  States,  etc.,  in  place  of  the  words  "  free  of 
any  special  duty  with  the  exception  of  the  duties  paid  "  on  similar 
products  of  the  United  States,  etc.  This  conforms  much  more  closely 
to  the  original  memorandum  of  Mr.  Vasquez  Cobo,  and  obviates  a 
danger  of  misunderstanding  which  would  be  unfortunate  for  us  all. 

With  kind  regards,  I  am,  as  ever, 
Faithfully,  yours, 

Elihu  Koot. 

I  inclose  a  draft  of  the  clause  as  I  propose  to  amend  it. 

E.  K. 
(Draft  not  on  files.) 

Private  letter  Colombian  minister  to  Mr.  Root. 

January  10,  1909. 

(Not  on  files.) 

Had  for  its  object  to  "  acknowledge  and  testify  in  the  most  em- 
phatic manner  possible  "  that  Mr.  Root's  action  in  the  matter  of  the 
treaties  has  been  marked  by  the  "  highest  degree  of  kindness,  con- 
sideration, fairness,  spirit  of  justice,  and  enlightened  foresight  as 
to  the  future  relations  of  your  country  and  ours." 

We  Colombians — 

Says  Minister  Cortes — 

fully  appreciate  your  merits  and  desire  for  you  still  a  long  career  of  prosperity 
and  success,  for  the  benefit,  not  only  of  your  great  country,  but  for  that  of  the 
whole  mankind  as  the  pioneer  of  an  epoch-making  foreign  policy  of  the  United 
States. 

Minister  Cortes  refers  to  the  signatures  to  the  three  treaties  the 
night  before,  and  says : 

Many  difficulties,  delicate  points,  and  intricate  problems  have  been  overcome 
and  decided  in  honorable  and  fair  conclusions. 


Message  from  the  Secretary  of  State  to  the  President,  submitting 
tripartite  treaties  for  the  Senate.     (Printed  Ex.  N,  60th  Cong.,  2d 

sess.) 

[Telegram  from  President  of  Colombia  to  Colombian   legation,  Jan.   12,   1909,  handed  to 
Secretary  of  State  at  Washington,  Jan.   13,  for   his  information. — Translation.] 

Am  extremely  pleased  news  conclusion  treaties.  These  will  be 
submitted  to  national  assembly.  I  trust  it  will  approve  them  and 
likewise  the  American  Senate  and  Panama  Assembly.  I  have  con- 
fidence in  the  Government  of  President  Roosevelt  and  Mr.  Root. 

Reyes. 


DIPLOMATIC    HIST0R1    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL.  187 

The  American  Charge  to  Secretary  Root. 

American  Legation, 
No.  223.]  Bogota,  January  IS,  1909. 

Sir  :  Referring  to  this  legation's  Dispatch  No.  185,  of  October  28,1 
last,  I  have  the  honor  to  inclose  herewith,  a  cutting  from  El  Nuevo 
Tiempo,  of  this  morning,  containing  the  telegrams  received  here  in 
regard  to  the  signing  of  the  treaties  between  the  United  States,  this 
country,  and  Panama,  together  with  translation  thereof. 

Considerable  favorable  comment  is  made  in  the  cutting  in  question 
on  the  character  of  the  treaties  as  shown  by  the  telegrams  received, 
and,  in  nry  interview  with  the  minister  for  foreign  affairs  yesterday, 
he  assured  me  of  the  satisfaction  of  this  Government  with  the  con- 
clusions reached.  The  article  from  El  Nuevo  Tiempo  was  inspired 
by  the  Government  and  carefully  corrected  by  Dr.  Urrutia  himself. 
It  may  be  taken,  therefore,  to  express  official  sentiment  on  the 
treaties. 

The  minister  for  foreign  affairs  showed  me  a  telegram  yesterday 
from  Mr.  Cortes,  stating  that  Mr.  Dawson  would  leave  Washington 
shortly  to  bring  the  treaty  just  made  to  this  capital.  Dr.  Urrutia 
asked  me,  in  this  connection,  the  probable  date  of  Mr.  Dawson's 
departure.  I  replied  that  I  had  not  been  advised  by  the  Depart- 
ment of  State  that  Mr.  Dawson  was  to  leave  Washington  at  any 
early  date. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir, 
Your  obedient  servant, 

Paxton  Hibben, 
Charge  d* Affaires  ad  interim. 


[Inclosure   2   in   No.   223. — Translation.] 
[El  Nuevo  Tiempo,  January  13,  1909.] 

Treaty  between  the  United  States  and  Panama. 

Effecting  better  conditions  than  the  investigations  of  ex-Minister 
Mendoza  Perez — The  honor  of  Colombia  saved — Colombia  will 
have  the  right  in  perpetuity  to  the  use  of  the  canal — Colombia 
conceded  $2,500,000  gold  as  Panama's  participation  in  our  foreign 
debt — The  present  treaty  surpasses  that  of  the  Herran-Hay — 
Future  of  Colombia  with  reference  to  the  Panama  Canal — The 
emerald  mines  of  Muzo  saved,  thereby  assuring  the  resources  for 
the  conversion  of  paper  money  and  the  attainment  of  stronger 
capital  in  gold,  changing  the  economic  situation  of  the  country — 
Colombia's  foreign  credit  strengthened  and  bettered — Drop  in 
foreign  exchange — Bogota,  with  its  emerald  mines  of  Muzo  and 
salt  mines  of  Zipaquira,  the  richest  part  of  Colombia. 

1  Not  printed  ;  not  important. 


188  DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

During  the  ordinary  night  session  of  the  council  of  ministers  of 

the  11th  instant,  the  minister  for  foreign  affairs  advised  the  council 

of  the  following  cablegram : 

Washington,  January  9,  1909. 
President,  Foreign  Minister,  Bogota: 

Treaties  United  States  and  Panama  signed,  bettering  former  conditions. 
Colombia  conceded  free  use,  in  perpetuity,  of  canal  and  $2,500,000  gold,  partici- 
pation Panama  our  foreign  debt. 

Cortes. 

From  London  and  from  Washington  we  have  received  the  follow- 
ing cablegrams : 

London,  January  11,  1909. 
Nuevo  Tiempo,  Bogota: 

Press  published  to-day  treaties  Colombia,  United  States,  and  Panama,  by 
which  Colombia  is  conceded  perpetual  use,  free,  of  canal,  and  .$2,500,000  gold, 
participation  Panama  foreign  debt.  Press  considers  treaties  satisfactory  Co- 
lombia, saving  its  honor  and  assuring  its  material  interests.  Colombia  credit 
strengthened  and  bettered.  Colombia  debit  bonds  rising  in  price.  Railway  and 
other  Colombian  enterprises  will  be  bettered  with  treaties  and  contract  emeralds 
Muzo  with  company  handling  diamonds  South  Africa.  Among  interested  are 
Rothschild. 

Correspondent. 

Washington,  January  10,  1909. 
Nuevo  Tiempo,  Bogota: 

Press  in  relating  treaties  United  States.  Colombia,  Panama,  considers  triumph 
and  satisfaction  given  to  Colombia.  Is  also  opinion  Latin-American  diplomats 
resident  in  Washington. 

Correspondent. 

By  the  former  of  these  cables  it  will  be  seen  that  the  Government 
has  finally  obtained  its  just  dues,  the  fruit  of  nearly  five  years  of  per- 
severing and  patient  labor  to  save  the  honor  of  the  country  and  to 
secure  our  great  interests  in  relation  with  the  Panama  Canal. 

The  treaty  in  question  must  be  considered  more  advantageous  to 
Colombia  than  the  Ilerran-Hay  treaty,  as  the  latter  submitted  us  to 
constant  humiliations  from  the  domination  of  a  powerful  foreign 
country  over  our  territory — humiliations  daily  suffered  by  the  Pana- 
mans — obliging  us  to  organize  the  police  of  the  canal  and  to  guar- 
antee the  preservation  of  order  of  the  same,  without  the  means 
to  fulfill  this  obligation. 

As  recognized  by  the  foreign  press,  the  honor  of  Colombia  is  saved, 
and,  consulting  our  immediate  material  interests,  the  most  important 
that  we  have  in  relation  with  the  Panama  Canal,  is  the  right  of  free 
use,  in  perpetuity,  of  the  same,  enabling  thereby  our  merchant  marine 
and  war  vessels  to  cross,  which  will  result,  perhaps,  in  far  better 
results  to  Colombia  than  to  the  United  States  or  any  other  country 
on  the  globe,  because  our  immense  and  rich  shores  on  both  oceans 
shall  be" united  and  shall  come  to  be  in  the  future  an  emporium  of 
riches  to  which  all  the  Colombians  of  the  country  will  rush  in  search 
of  work. 

Buenaventura,  with  its  railway  to  the  rich  valley  of  the  Cauca 
and  the  exploitation  of  the  coal  mines  through  which  this  line  trav- 
erses, and  Cartagena,  with  its  beautiful  and  safe  bay.  will  be  in  time 
two  of  the  most  important  ports  of  the  South  American  Continent, 
and  at  no  distant  date  Japanese  vessels  will  proceed  to  the  same  to 
exchange  products  of  the  advanced  industries  of  the  Land  of  the 
Eising  Sun  with  our  natural  and  agricultural  products  to  the  mutual 
benefit  of  the  two  countries. 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA  CANAL.  189 

It  is  to  be  hoped  that  these  treaties  will  be  approved  by  the  legis- 
lative bodies  of  the  respective  countries. 

In  the  same  night  session  of  the  council  of  ministers  of  the  11th 
instant,  the  subseeretary  of  treasury  in  charge  of  the  office  of  treas- 
ury and  finance  reported  that  he  had  received  notice  by  cable  that 
in  London  there  had  been  signed  a  contract  with  a  reputable  company 
whose  members  intend  to  exploit  and  sell  South  African  diamonds. 
According  to  this  contract  they  will  exploit  the  Muzo  mines,  the  em- 
eralds therefrom  to  be  sold  for  account  of  the  Government  of  Co- 
lombia and  under  its  supervision;  and  the  company  binds  itself 
during  20  years  to  account  for  an  annual  minimum  sale  of  $1,250,000, 
gold,  at  higher  prices  than  those  at  which  these  precious  stones  have 
lately  been  sold. 

We  consider  that  the  triumph  gained  by  the  country,  and  which  we 
announce  in  the  cables  before  mentioned,  if  they  are  perhaps  not 
of  so  much  importance  and  transcendency  as  harmony  between  all 
Colombians  and  the  solid  preservation  of  peace,  as  the  fruits  of  jus- 
tice, they  must  be  placed  after  these,  as  abundant  material  resources 
once  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  Government  for  continuing  the  pro- 
motion of  the  construction  and  betterment  of  railways,  cart  roads, 
etc.,  gold  capital  will  be  able  to  come  into  the  country  in  sufficient 
quantities  to  fill  the  most  urgent  needs  for  money,  to  the  end  that  the 
money  interest  be  lowered  at  least  10  per  cent  per  annum,  with  which 
many  industries,  which  to-day  do  not  exist,  on  account  of  the  scarcity 
of  money,  may  be  established.  The  Government  as  well  as  the  banks 
must  occupy  themselves  largely  in  providing  a  circulating  medium, 
in  order  to  avoid  any  sharp  drop  in  foreign  exchange,  because  it  is 
clear  that  the  country  having  but  a  third  or  fourth  part  of  the  coin 
that  is  indispensable,  and  always  increasing  its  scarcity  by  the  grow- 
ing necessity  of  meeting  the  expenses  of  railroads,  mining  enterprises, 
etc.,  the  day  may  arrive  when  foreign  exchange  will  drop  10,  20,  or 
30,  as  in  previous  times,  when  no  account  was  taken  of  the  immense 
resources  just  pointed  out,  exchange  used  to  rise. 

With  the  fixed  revenue  assured  by  the  contract  relating  to  the 
Muzo  mines,  which  is  a  minimum  of  $1,250,000,  gold,  annually,  which 
can  easily  be  doubled,  the  Government  should  be  able  to  obtain  a 
small  loan,  guaranteed  by  said  revenues,  of  ten  to  fifteen  millions  of 
pesos,  which  amount  should  be  destined  exclusively  to  the  conversion 
of  the  paper  money  to  gold  or  to  gold  bank  notes,  and  in  this  manner 
change  in  a  few  days  the  painful  economic  situation  of  the  country 
to  one  of  abundance  and  welfare.  It  is  to  be  hoped  that  the  Gov- 
ernment will  follow  this  course,  taking  advantage  of  the  foreign 
credit  of  the  country,  and  so  foster  the  growing  confidence  which  we 
have  in  the  preservation  of  peace. 

The  contract  signed  in  London  relating  to  the  emerald  mines  of 
Muzo  proves  that  the  richest  part  of  Colombia  is  Bogota,  or.  better 
said,  the  interior  of  the  country,  as  the  sole  riches  mentioned  repre- 
sent a  fine  annual  revenue  of  some  millions  of  pesos,  and  if  the  Muzo 
mines  aggregate  the  large  and  inexhaustible  banks  of  salt  of  Zipa- 
quira  and  Boyaca,  the  conclusion  is  reached  that  no  other  sections 
of  the  country  are  more  effective  and  rich  than  these  which  benefit  the 
whole  nation. 

Outside  of  being  the  capital  of  the  Republic,  there  is  another  title 
possessed  by  Bogota.     It  is  true  that,  in  times  past,  it  was  very  diffi- 


190  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

cult  to  reach  by  the  bad  means  of  communication;  but  to-day,  with 
the  completion  of  the  Girardot  Railroad,  the  cart  road  of  the  north, 
having  a  length  of  more  than  50  leagues,  and  which  will  be  duly 
inaugurated  on  the  20th  of  July  next  as  an  automobile  transporta- 
tion enterprise,  according  to  the  contract  already  signed;  the  con- 
struction of  the  Las  Papas  road ;  the  betterment,  already  under  way, 
of  all  railways;  within  a  few  years  this  difficulty  will  have  dis- 
appeared. 

We  are  informed  that  in  the  session  of  the  council  of  ministers, 
already  referred  to.  ail  pending  questions  were  settled,  and  it  was 
resolved  that  in  the  future  there  shall  be  but  one,  in  place  of  two, 
night  sessions  weekly.  We  understand  that  in  a  number  of  these 
sessions — as,  for  instance,  in  those  of  the  24th  and  .'list  of  December — - 
the  council  worked  until  the  following  daj^.  We  extend  our  mont 
hearty  felicitations  to  the  council  of  ministers,  which,  properly  speak- 
ing, is  the  Government  of  the  country,  who,  applying  themselves 
strictly  to  the  constitution  and  to  the  laws,  have,  by  their  constant 
and  fecund  labors,  already  formed  a  school  for  all  public  employees 
in  all  the  branches  of  the  administration. 

These  are  the  fruits  of  the  national  concordance,  of  order,  of  peace, 
and  of  justice. 

Let  us  continue  our  labors. 


Minister  Squiers  to  Secretary  Root. 

[Telegram.] 

American  Legation, 

Panama  (undated). 
(Received  January  30,  10.22  p.  m.) 
Recent  treaty  between  Colombia  and  Panama  ratified  by  National 
Assembly  this  afternoon  without  amendment  or  discussion. 

Squiers. 

Minister  of  Panama  to  Secretary  Root. 
[Telegram.] 

Havana  (undated). 
(Received  January  31.  1009,  4.50  p.  m.) 
Secretary  Arango  cables  me  that  both  treaties  have  been  ratified 
by  Panama. 

Arosemena. 


Acting  Secretary  of  State  to  Minister  Dawson. 

[Telegram.] 

Department  of  State, 
Washington,  February  #,  1909. 
Department  officially  advised  that  Panaman  National  Assembly 
has  ratified  without  amendment  treaties  between  United  States  and 
Panama  and  Panama  and  Colombia.  Use  your  best  endeavors  to 
urge  Colombia  to  take  similar  action  regarding  her  treaties  with  the 
United  States  and  with  Panama. 

Bacon. 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  191 

The  American  Charge  to  Mr.  Root. 

No.  232.]  American  Legation, 

Bogota,  February  12,  1909. 

Sir:  In  reference  to  the  department's  cipher  telegram  of  the  9th 
instant  advising  the  legation  that  the  Government  of  Panama  had 
ratified  the  treaties  between  that  country,  the  United  States,  and 
Colombia,  I  have  the  honor  to  inclose  herewith  a  cutting  from  El 
Nuevo  Tiempo,  of  this  morning,  together  with  translation  thereof, 
announcing  the  convocation  of  the  National  Assembly  for  the  22d 
instant  to  consider  the  acceptance  of  the  treaties  in  question.  As  will 
be  seen  from  this  article,  as  well  as  from  those  transmitted  in  this 
legation's  Nos.  223  and  227,1  of  January  13  and  18,  respectively,  the 
treaties  are  received  with  favor  by  both  the  official  and  semiofficial 
organs  of  the  Government,  and  no  doubt  is  expressed  as  to  their  ulti- 
mate acceptance  by  the  National  Assembly.  I  have  just  seen  the  min- 
ister for  foreign  affairs,  who  questioned  me  closely  in  regard  to  the 
acceptance  of  the  treaties  by  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  and 
he  assured  me  that  it  was  the  hope  and  belief  of  Gen.  Reyes  that 
there  would  not  be  the  slightest  difficulty  in  regard  to  the  ratification 
of  the  treaties  here. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir, 
Your  obedient  servant, 

Paxton  Hibben, 
Charge  d? Affaires  ad  interim. 


[Inclosure  2  in  No.  232. — Translation.] 
[El   Nuevo   Tiempo,   February   12,   1909.] 

Treaties  of  Colombia  with  Panama  and  the  United  States. 

Favorable  stipulations  toward  Colombia — Convocation  of  the  Na- 
tional Assembly — To  reunite  February  22 — To  discuss  the  treaties 
.  and  the  budget  of  revenues  and  expenses. 

As  our  readers  are  already  aware,  from  the  reproduction  made 
3*esterday  of  an  article  from  the  Panaman  periodical.  La  EstrellaT 
of  some  of  the  bases  of  the  treaties  which  our  minister  in  Washington 
signed  with  the  representatives  of  Panama  and  of  the  United  States — 

In  addition  to  the  stipulations  mentioned  by  La  Estrella,  we  un- 
derstand, on  good  authority,  that  in  the  treaties  in  question  there 
appear  the  following  conditions,  which  are  more  favorable  to  Co- 
lombia than  those  contained  in  the  Herran-Hay  treaty: 

The  isthmian  railroad  will  carry  members  of  the  Colombian  Army, 
army  provisions,  mails,  etc.,  under  the  same  conditions  as  stipulated 
by  Panama  with  the  United  States; 

The  salt  from  the  national  salt  mines  on  the  Atlantic  will  be  trans- 
ported free,  with  no  other  encumbrance  than  the  wastes  of  loading 
and  unloading.  This  concession  is  of  great  importance,  as  on  ac- 
count of  the  same  the  ocean  salt  of  our  country  will  be  used  in  place 

1  Not  included  ;   not  important. 


192  DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY  OF   THE  PANAMA  CANAL. 

of  foreign  salt.  In  this  manner  the  hundreds  of  thousands  of  pesos, 
gold,  going  oul  of  the  country  to  pay  Tor  foreign  salt  consumed  in 
the  departments  of  the  Pacific  will  be  slopped; 

Colombia  is  conceded  the  right  to  enter  the  Canal  Zone  with 
such  of  her  products,  as  provisions,  fatted  cattle,  etc.,  for  consump- 
tion, under  the  same  conditions  as  the  products  of  the  United  States. 
This  concession  promises  for  our  agricultural  industries  and  the 
welfare  of  cur  shores  on  both  oceans  -especially  for  the  fanners  of 
the  Atlantic  coast  a  benefit  worth  thousands  of  pesos,  gold,  annually 
in  the  exportation  of  fatted  cattle  only,  which  exportation,  as  we 
all  know,  has  ended  with  ureal  detriment,  owing  to  the  fact  that 
the  markets  of  Cuba  and  of  the  Isthmus  imposed  a  duty  of  15  pest  S, 
gold,  on  each  head  of  fatted  cattle; 

Further,  the  treaty  concedes  to  us  the  free  passage  of  the  canal — - 
free  of  all  taxes  for  the  navy  of  our  country,  whether  in  case  of 
interior  or  exterior  wars; 

Upon  guaranty  oi'  the  United  States.  Panama  will  pay  to  Colombia 
$2,500,000,  corresponding  to  its  participation  in  the  foreign  debt :  and 

The  boundaries  will  be  the  same  as  those  determined  by  the  law 
of  the  9th  of  June,  1855. 

All  these  concessions  are  of  such  importance  and  magnitude  that 
we  have  to  recognize  that  the  American  Government  has  made  an 
effort  to  give  us  satisfaction  for  the  injustices  committed  against 
Colombia,  and  oi'  which  the  diplomatic  mission — of  which  the  actual 
President  vi'  Colombia  was  chief  -claimed,  in  the  well-known  note 
of  grievance  which  to-day  is  placed  in  the  right  before  the  eyes  of 
the  civilized  world. 

In  our  yesterday's  edition  we  gave  space  to  a  letter  addressed  to 
the  Herald  by  the  well-known  American  professor,  Hamilton  Rice, 
in  which  he  recognized  the  unjust  manner  in  which  Colombia  was 
treated,  and  with  grand  altruistic  spirit  advised  his  country  that 
they  give  satisfaction  enforcing  the  principles  of  equity,  a  satis- 
faction which  must  correspond  to  the  greatness  of  the  American 
people. 

The  council  iA'  ministers,  in  its  session  of  yesterday,  convoked 
the  National  Assembly  to  extraordinary  sessions,  which  will  reunite 
on  the  22d  instant  to  consider,  in  addition  to  the  budget  of  revenues 
and  expenses  of  the  present  year,  the  treaties  in  question.  We  un- 
derstand that  they  have  already  been  approved  by  the  Assembly 
of  Panama,  and  judging  by  cable  advices,  they  will  also  be  approved 
by  the  American  Senate,  which  at  present  is  discussing  them. 

Our  minister  in  Washington  was  not  mistaken  when  he  reported 
to  (Mir  minister  for  foreign  affairs  the  generosity  of  these  treaties, 
a  fact  which  has  been  recognized  by  the  sort  of  plebiscite  which  has 
begun  in  this  country  regarding  this  important  question.  By  tele- 
grams, which  we  have  published  in  this  periodical  from  several  parts 
oi'  the  Republic,  it  will  be  seen  that  public  opinion  is  unanimous  in 
approbation. 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL  193 

Minister  Dawson  to  Secretary  of  State. 

[Telegram.] 

American  Legation, 

Bogota  (undated) 
(Received  Feb.  14.  1909.) 
Arrived.     National  Assembly  summoned  for  February  22;  pros- 
pects ratification  favorable. 

Dawson. 


Minister  Dawson  to  Secretary  of  State. 

[Telegram.] 

American  Legation.  Bogota 

(Received  Feb.  17,  1909). 
After  an  informal  conference  with  21  members  of  the  National 
Assembly  already  present,  out  of  18,  yesterday,  the  President  of  Co- 
lombia and  the  Colombian  minister  for  foreign  affairs  quite  confident 
of  the  unanimous  ratification  so  soon  as  the  assembly  meets.  The 
treaties  are  satisfactory  in  every  detail.  Inform  the  minister  of 
Colombia. 

Dawson. 


Minister  Dawson  to  Secretary  of  State. 

No.  235.]  American  Legation, 

Bogota.  February  17,  1909. 

Sir:  As  I  had  the  honor  of  reporting  to  the  department  by  my 
telegram  of  the  13th  instant,  I  arrived  in  Bogota  on  that  day,  carry- 
ing  the  treaties  between  Colombia  and  the  United  States  and  Panama. 
They  were  at  once  delivered,  but  owing  to  the  slight  illness  of  the 
minister  for  foreign  affairs  and  the  intervention  of  Sunday  I  was 
not  able  to  resume  my  official  relations  with  this  Government  until 
the  loth.  I  inclose  herewith  a  note  to  that  effect  addressed  to  the 
minister  for  foreign  affairs  and  a  copy  and  translation  of  his  reply 
received  to-day. 

From  Cartagena.  Gamarra.  and  Ambalema  I  telegraphed  Presi- 
dent Reyes  or  the  minister  for  foreign  affairs.  At  Cartegena,  Barran- 
qnilla.  Gamarra,  Honda.  Mariquita,  Ambalema.  and  Girardot,  as 
well  as  on  the  steamboats  and  at  Bogota.  I  conversed  with  a  large 
number  of  Colombians  of  different  shades  of  political  opinion,  and 
was  able  to  detect  no  criticism  of  the  terms  of  the  treaties  or  indica- 
tion of  an  intention  to  oppose  their  ratification  by  the  National  As- 
sembly. Among  some  enemies  of  President  Reyes  it  is  said  that  he 
ought  to  call  a  new  election  for  a  congress  composed  of  two  house-. 
and  submit  the  treaties  to  it.  but  there  seems  to  be  no  likelihood  of 
any  concerted  action  in  this  direction.  Prior  to  my  arrival  at  Carta- 
gena. President  Reyes  considered  the  advisability  of  such  action,  and 

4l'l  VJ— S.  Doc.  474.  63-2 13 


194  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL. 

consulted  many  prominent  citizens  about  it.  While  I  was  on  the 
river  he  announced  that  since  public  opinion  was  overwhelmingly 
in  favor  of  the  treaties  and  their  prompt  ratification,  he  had  deter- 
mined to  summon  the  National  Assembly  for  the  22d  instant.  (See 
Mr.  Hibben's  Nos.  232  and  233  of  the  L2th  and  13th  instant.) 

Yesterday  (February  10)  I  had  a  long  interview  with  President 
Reyes.  He  had  read  the  text  of  the  treaties  and  made  no  criticism 
of  any  of  their  details,  referring  with  much  satisfaction  to  their  very 
exact  correspondence  with  his  instructions  given  in  1905  and  190G 
through  Dr.  Climaco  Calderon.  then  minister  for  foreign  affairs.  He 
had  no  doubt  that  the  National  Assembly  would  ratify  them  by  an 
overwhelming  or  even  a  unanimous  vote,  and  this  by  the  end  of  next 
wTeek.  He  and  the  minister  for  foreign  affairs  had  an  informal  con- 
ference with  21  of  the  48  members  of  which  the  assembly  is  com- 
posed. (See  my  telegram  of  to-day.)  Their  votes  were  assured. 
Members  were  arriving  rapidly,  and  he  would  see  about  20  more  in 
a  day  or  two.  Telegrams  were  pouring  in  daily  from  all  parts  of 
Colombia  expressing  satisfaction  with  the  treaties. 

President  Reyes  manifested  great  anxiety  about  ratification  by  the 
United  States  Senate.  He  showed  me  a  telegram,  dated  February  14, 
from  Minister  Cortes,  in  which  the  latter  stated  that  it  was  probable 
the  Senate  would  amend  the  treaty  between  Panama  and  the  United 
States.  Reyes  fears  that  this  may  delay  the  Senate's  ratification  of 
the  Colombian-United  States  treaty,  and  suspects  that  the  Govern- 
ment of  Panama  will  intrigue  to  this  end.  He  had  already  answered 
Cortes's  telegram  saying  something  to  this  effect. 

I  told  him  that  the  latest  instructions  from  my  Government  (see 
your  telegram  of  February  9)  indicated  that  the  department  was 
strongly  of  the  opinion  that  Colombia's  interests  would  be  furthered 
by  her  immediately  ratifying,  and  that  I  had  no  news  of  any  dispo- 
sition on  the  part  of  the  Senate  to  amend  the  Colombian  treaty  or 
delay  its  ratification. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir, 
Your  obedient  servant, 

T.  C.  Dawson. 

[Inclosure  1   in  No.   235.] 

F.  O.  No.  42.]  February  15,  1909. 

Mr.  Minister.  1  have  the  honor  to  announce  to  your  excellency 
that,  having  returned  after  my  conge.  I  have  again  assumed  the  dis- 
charge of  my  duties  at  this  post. 

I  take  advantage  of  this  occasion  to  express  my  thanks  for  your 
excellency's  kindness  to  Mr.  Paxton  Hibben,  who  has  been  charge 
d'affaires  since  September  20  last,  during  my  absence,  and  to  express 
the  hope  that  the  admirable  relations  existing  between  your  ex- 
cellency's Government  and  my  own  and  this  legation  will  continue. 

1  improve  this  opportunity  to  renew  to  your  excellency  the  assur- 
ances of  my  highest  consideration. 

To  His  Excellency  Dr.  Francisco  Jose  Urrutia, 

Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs. 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL,  195 

[Inclosure  3  in  No.  235.] 

Ministry  for  Foreign  Affairs, 

Bogota,  February  16, 1909. 
Mr.  Minister:  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of 
your  excellency's  courteous  communication  of  yesterday's  date. 

By  the  same  I  note  that  your  excellency,  having  returned  to  this 
city  from  which  you  have  been  absent  on  leave,  has  again  resumed 
the  exercise  of  the  functions  corresponding  to  your  character  as 
diplomatic  representative  of  the  United  States  to  Colombia, 

I  highly  appreciate  the  friendly  manifestations  you  have  had  the 
kindness  to  extend  to  me,  which  inspire  me  with  the  assurance  that 
not  only  will  the  bonds  which  so  happily  unite  the  Republic  of 
Colombia  with  the  United  States  become  closer,  but  that  the  official 
relations  with  your  honorable  legation  will,  in  the  future,  be  as 
frank  and  cordial  as  those  up  to  the  present  time,  which  I  have  had 
the  pleasure  of  cultivating  with  the  charge  d'affaires  ad  interim, 
Mr.  Hibben. 

I  beg  that  your  excellency  accept  the  reiterated  assurances  of  my 
most  distinguished  consideration. 

Francisco  Jose  Urrutia. 
To  His  Excellency  T.  C.  Dawson, 

Envoy  Extraordinary  and  Minister 

Plenipotentiary  of  the  United  States. 


Minister  Dawson  to  Secretary  of  State. 

[Telegram.] 

American  Legation, 
Bogota,  February  23,  1909. 
The  treaties  passed  reading  to-day.    The  proceedings  public.    The 
treaties  now  are  before  a   special  committee.     No  unfavorable  de 
velopments  so  far. 

Dawson. 


Acting  Secretary  Bacon  to  Minister  Dawson. 

[Telegram.] 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  February  26, 1909. 
On  24th  instant  Senate  approved  treaty  with  Colombia  without 
change  and  treaty  with  Panama  with  understanding  no  questions 
shall  be  submitted  to  arbitration  affecting  vital  interests  of  United 
States  in  construction,  operation,  maintenance,  sanitation,  and  pro- 
tection of  canal. 

Bacon. 


196  DIPLOMATIC     BISTOEY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL. 

Minister  Dawson  to  Secretary  Root. 

No.  241. J  American  Legation, 

Bogota,  February  26,  1000. 
Secretary  of  State, 

Washington,  D.  (J. 
Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  inclose  herewith  a  copy  of  the  exposition 
of  the  minister  for  foreign  affairs  accompanying  the  recent  Panama 
and  United  States  treaties  together  with  a  translation  thereof.  The 
translation  I  was  not  able  to  complete  in  time  to  go  with  my  No.  240. 
of  February  24  last.1 

A  full  translation  is  sent  of  this  very  long  document,  not  only  be- 
cause of  its  intrinsic  importance,  but  because  between  its  lines  is 
shown  better  than  I  have  ever  seen  it  the  real, state  of  opinion  in 
Colombia  in  regard  to  the  United  States  and  the  secession  of  Pan- 
ama. I  also  desire  to  call  especial  attention  to  pages  9  and  10  there- 
of, containing  words  appreciative  of  Mr.  Root. 
I  have  the  honor  to  be.  sir, 
Your  obedient  servant. 

T.  C.  Dawson. 


[Inclosure  2  in  No.  241. — Translation.] 

Presidential  message . 

Honorable   Members   of   the   National   Constituent    a  ml   Legislative 

Assemblg : 

The  minister  for  foreign  affairs  will  submit  to  your  consideration 
the  treaties  signed  at  Washington  on  January  9  last  by  our  minister, 
Enrique  Cortes,  and  the  plenipotentiaries  of  the  United  States  and 
Panama,  Elihu  Root  and  Carlos  Constantino  Arosemena.  Rightly 
viewed,  this  important  and  delicate  negotiation  was  begun  in  Wash- 
ington by  the  diplomatic  note  addressed  on  December  23,  1903,  to 
John  Hay,  Secretary  of  State,  by  the  mission  which  I  had  the  honor 
of  presiding  over,  and  whose  members  were  Jorge  Holguin,  Pedro 
Nel  Ospina,  and  Lucas  Caballero. 

By  the  celebration  of  these  treaties  our  legation  in  Washington 
has  carried  into  effect  the  instructions  given  it  by  the  Government 
through  the  various  ministers  who  have  had  charge  of  the  portfolio 
of  foreign  relations  during  the  present  administration,  and  it  is  just 
to  recognize  the  patriotism  and  intelligence  with  which  our  present 
minister  to  the  United  States,  Enrique  Cortes,  has  conducted  the 
negotiations  and  brought  them  to  a  happy  termination. 

I  cherish  the  hope  that  when  the  Colombian  people  become  familiar 
with  their  contents  they  will  give  a  decisive  verdict  in  their  favor, 
since  in  making  them  the  executive  has  taken  into  account  not  only 
the  interests  and  needs  of  the  people  but  also  their  commands. 

In  fact,  the  junta  of  commissioners  of  commerce,  agriculture,  and 
industry  of  the  Departments,  which  met  in  Bogota  in  the  month  of 
July,  1906,  to  deal  with  economic  subjects,  at  that  time  of  great 
importance,  and  whose  members  belonged  to  all  political  parties,  and 

1  Not  printed  ;  unimportant. 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL.  197 

who,  further,  were  favorably  known  on  account  of  the  high  political 
and  social  position  they  occupy  in  our  society,  unanimously  approved 
at  their  session  of  July  12,  190G.  the  following  proposition: 

The  undersigned,  commissioners  of  commerce,  agriculture,  and  industry  of 
the  Departments  of  Narino,  Cauca,  Antioquia,  Bolivar.  Atlantico,  and  Magda- 
lena,  which  are  the  coast  Departments,  some  bordering  on  the  Pacific  and 
some  on  the  Atlantic,  respectfully  represent  to  the  executive  the  necessity  of 
defining  quickly  and  in  a  manner  honorable  and  advantageous  for  Colombia  the 
questions  pending  with  the  United  States  and  with  Panama,  and  ask  that  this 
proposition,  which  has  been  agreed  upon  with  the  minister  for  foreign  affairs, 
be  considered  by  the  junta. 

Caledonio  Pineres. 

Lie  iano  Herrkra. 

Oscar  A.  Nogtiera. 

RlCARDO   lCF.STREPO   C. 

Leonardo  Tascon. 

The  very  respectable  organs  of  the  press  received  this  proposition 
with  applause,  and  public  opinion,  once  in  possession  of  the  knowl- 
edge necessary  for  forming  a  judgment  on  such  a  grave  matter,  did 
not  delay  in  making  its  preponderant  influence  felt  in  a  like  sense, 
as  appears  by  the  multitude  of  documents  which  were  printed  and 
which  may  reasonably  be  considered  as  the  result  of  a  full  plebiscite. 

The  executive,  which  considers  our  relations  with  foreign  nations 
related  in  a  certain  manner  to  our  interior  policy,  conscious  of  its 
duties  and  responsibilities,  and  at  the  same  time  acting  as  the  inter- 
preter of  the  national  will  and  looking  out  for  the  moral  and  mate- 
rial interests  of  the  country  which  have  been  confided  to  it,  has, 
during  the  last  five  years,  uninterruptedly  worked  with  the  greatest 
zeal  to  obtain  an  honorable  and  advantageous  arrangement  of  this 
delicate  question,  and  entertains  the  belief  of  having  done  so  by  the 
treaties  which  are  submitted  to  your  enlightened  consideration,  and 
which  should  be,  on  your  part,  approved  without  any  amendment. 

R.  Reyes. 

Bogota,  February  22,  1909. 


Exposition  presented  by  the  minister  for  foreign  affairs  to  the 
honorable  National  Constituent  and  Legislative  Assembly  concern- 
ing the  treaties  celebrated  by  the  Republic  of  Colombia  with  the 
United  States  and  Panama. 

Mr.  I* resident  of  the  Assembly,  Jtonorabh    Deputies: 

I  have  the  honor  to  submit  to  your  consideration  the  following 
international  agreements : 

A  treaty  between  the  Republic  of  Colombia  and  the  United  States 
of  America,  signed  in  the  city  of  Washington  on  the  9th  of  Janu- 
ary of  the  current  year,  by  Enrique  Cortes,  envoy  extraordinary  and 
minister  plenipotentiary  of  Colombia  at  that  capital,  and  Elihu 
Root,  Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States. 

A  treaty  between  the  Republics  of  Colombia  and  Panama,  signed 
in  the  city  of  Washington  on  the  9th  of  January  of  the  current  year, 
by  P^nrique  Cortes,  envoy  extraordinary  and  minister  plenipotentiary 
of  Colombia  to  the  United  States,  and  Carlos  Constantino  Arose- 
mena.  envoy  extraordinary  and  minister  plenipotentiary  of  Panama 
to  said  Nation. 


198  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE    PANAMA   CANAL. 

These  agreements  constitute  the  result  of  the  long  and  difficult 
negotiation-  begun  and  carried  on  by  the  Governmentof  the  present 
President  of  the  Republic,  who,  ever  since  he  has  occupied  the  chief 
magistracy,  has  been  convinced  of  the  necessity  of  regulating  the 
relations  of  fact  which  have  arisen  as  a  logical  consequence  of  the 
sad  events  which  happened  in  Panama  on  the  3d  of  November,  1003, 
and  of  normalizing  our  situation  and  our  rights  as  affected  by  the 
approaching  opening  of  the  Panama  Canal.  In  order  to  arrive 
at  the  result  now  achieved,  it  has  been  necessary  that  the  chief  of 
state  and  those  of  us  who  have  been  his  collaborators  in  the  different 
epochs  and  phases  of  the  negotiations,  should,  rather  than  complain 
over  the  cruel  mutilation  of  our  territory,  that  wounded  our  patriot- 
ism and  caused  national  grief,  pay  attention  to  the  imperious  and 
not-to-be-neglected  necessities  of  the  future,  and,  accepting  as  irrem- 
ediable facts  that  are  so,  should  firmly  confront  the  responsibility 
of  putting  an  end  to  the  terrible  litigation  which  has  stained  and 
blackened  so  many  pages  of  our  contemporaneous  history.  Fully 
conscious  of  this  responsibility  before  the  country  and  before  history, 
the  Government  presents  to  you  to-day  the  agreements  mentioned, 
with  the  desire  that  you  give  them  your  high  sanction  if  you  find 
them  advantageous  to  our  national  interests,  as  the  Government 
believes  them  to  be. 

In  order  to  better  aid  your  serene  judgment,  and  before  entering 
upon  the  analysis  of  the  texts  of  the  treaties,  I  am  going  to  permit 
myself  to  call  your  attention  succinctly  to  the  history  of  the  negotia- 
tions which  have  brought  about  the  celebration  of  these  treaties. 
These  negotiations  constitute  antecedents  of  great  importance  in 
the  matter,  and  have  been  so  long  and  laborious  that  they  make 
manifest  that  there  has  been  no  haste  in  this  important  negotiation, 
but  that,  on  the  contrary,  they  have  been  carried  on  with  the  calm 
serenity  and  prudence  required  by  the  magnitude  of  the  question. 
As  chief  magistrate,  Gen.  Reyes  has  done  nothing  more  than  to  carry 
on  his  labors  to  revindicate  our  rights,  initiated  immediately  after 
the  separation,  when  he  went  to  Washington  as  chief  of  the  special 
diplomatic  mission,  whose  members  were  Jorge  Holguin,  Pedro 
Nel  Ospina.  and  Lucas  Caballero.  The  memorial  of  complaints 
of  December  23,  1003.  which  so  genuinely  condensed  the  complaints 
of  Colombian  patriotism,  was  the  point  of  departure  for  the  process 
which  has  gone  on  ever  since. 

On  February  28,  1005,  Dr.  Mendoza  was  named  envoy  extraordi- 
nary and  minister  plenipotentiary  of  Colombia  to  the  Government  of 
the  United  States,  with  the  object  of  procuring  the  arrangement  of 
the  matters  pending  between  Colombia  and  the  United  States  and 
between  Colombia  and  Panama.  The  instructions  given  to  Dr. 
.Mendoza  by  the  then  minister  for  foreign  affairs,  Dr.  Climaco  Cal- 
deron,  show  the  opinions  of  the  Government  as  to  the  necessit}^  of 
putting  a  dignified  end  to  that  situation,  so  disagreeable  and  preju- 
dicial t:>  our  interests,  which  had  been  created  by  the  separation  of 
Pa  ni.  ma. 

Dr.  Calderon,  like  the  President,  and  like  those  of  us  who  have 
been  his  successors  in  the  department  of  foreign  relations,  well  un- 
derstood that  the  problem  we  had  before  us  would  only  be  compli- 
cated by  indefinitely  adjourning  its  solution,  and  that  such  a  delay 
would  be  the  origin,  in  the  passage  of  time,  of  other  problems  equally 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  199 

complicated.  I  take  the  liberty  of  copying  here  certain  of  the  para- 
graphs of  the  instructions  given  by  Dr.  Calderon  to  Dr.  Diego  Men- 
doza,  since  they  state  perfectly  and  simply  the  intentions  of  the  Gov- 
ernment in  relation  to  the  transcendentally  important  duty  confided 
to  the  new  Colombian  envoy.    Dr.  Calderon  said  as  follows : 

In  the  discharge  of  his  functions,  Dr.  Mendoza  will  begin  by  persuading  the 
Government  of  the  United  States  that  the  present  Government  of  Colombia  is 
fully  conscious  of  the  responsibility  of  its  great  duties;  that  all  parties  are 
making  efforts  to  maintain  peace;  that  Colombia  has  entered  upon  the  path  of 
good  sense;  and  that  obligations  which  may  be  contracted  will  be  faithfully 
executed. 

In  the  opinion  of  the  Government  of  Colombia,  the  independence  of  Panama 
is  an  accomplished  fact;  and  if  any  doubts  remain  on  this  point,  they  would  be 
dissipated  by  recalling  that  the  first  treaty  celebrated  between  Panama  and  the 
United  States  contains  an  express  guaranty  of  the  independence  of  the  new 
Republic.  As  a  consequence  of  our  recognition  of  Panama,  the  minister  is 
authorized  to  make  a  postal  convention,  a  consular  convention,  a  general  treaty 
of  commerce,  and  one  of  extradition.  The  rules  to  be  followed  by  the  minister 
in  adjusting  the  above-mentioned  international  agreements  are  not  given  in 
minute  detail,  because  besides  the  general  principles  applicable  to  such  mat- 
ters, and  which  the  minister  is  familiar  with,  he  should  look  to  the  particular 
circumstances  of  each  case  and  bear  in  mind  that  Colombia  does  not  ask  for 
exorbitant  concessions,  but  only  for  what  will  tend  to  mutual  progress  and  good 
friendship  between  two  nations  of  common  origin  and  harmonious  interests; 
for  what  will  redound  to  the  benefit  of  both  and  (be  well  being  of  their  citizens. 

And  further  on,  in  the  same  instruction,  Dr.  Calderon  adds: 

Present  general  sentiment  in  Colombia  tends  toward  the  reestablishment  of 
relations  between  the  two  entities.  There  are  some  who  desire  that  Colombia 
should  maintain  a  condition  of  hostility  and  rancor  in  respect  to  Panama.  Such 
spirits  will  protest  against  anything  that  may  be  done.  Nevertheless,  having  in 
view  the  great  future  interests  of  the  country,  the  Government  does  not  hesi- 
tate to  follow  a  different  policy  from  that  advised  by  such  citizens.  They  are 
doubtless  zealous  patriots,  but  they  refuse  to  see  the  reality  of  accomplished 
facts.  Therefore,  the  Government  of  Colombia  assumes  before  contemporaries 
and  posterity  the  responsibility  of  the  policy  which  it  now.  after  a  thorough, 
serene,  and  impartial  examination,  orders  to  be  followed.  It  is  confident  that 
the  minister,  freeing  himself  from  prejudices  and  preoccupations  of  badly  un- 
derstood patriotism,  will  have  the  civil  courage  to  assume  in  his  turn  the  re- 
sponsibilities of  such  a  policy,  and  that  he  will  not  hesitate  to  attach  his  name 
to  the  transcendental  acts  we  have  spoken  of,  being  sure  that  he  will  be  acting 
as  a  good  citizen  and  patriot.  In  its  turn  the  Government  is  confident  that  the 
good  sentiment  of  the  country  will  prevail  and  leaves  to  the  passage  of  time  its 
historical  justification. 

The  three  years  transpired  since  Dr.  Calderon  wrote  these  instruc- 
tions have  not  lessened,  but.  on  the  contrary,  accentuated  and  per- 
fectly confirmed  the  logical  force  of  his  opinions.  The  Republic  of 
Panama,  recognized  by  the  majority  of  the  nations  of  the  world  from 
the  beginning  of  its  existence,  has  been  able  to  continue  its  inde- 
pendent life  under  the  same  protection  that  sheltered  its  birth  and 
its  introduction  into  international  society.  The  abnormality  of  our 
relations  of  public  and  private  international  law  with  an  entity 
bordering  upon  us  and  profoundly  linked  to  our  own  causes  us  con- 
tinual difficulties.  A  very  numerous  group  of  our  compatriots, 
formed  by  Colombians  who  have  preferred  to  retain  their  original  . 
nationality  in  the  territory  of  the  new  Republic  and  those  who  have 
gone  to  said  territory  since  the  3d  of  November,  L903,  live  there  with- 
out defined  rights,  seeing  that,  in  the  condition  of  our  relations  with 
the  territory  which,  theoretically,  we  have  continued  to  consider  our 
own.  notwithstanding  its  independence,  in  fact,  from  our  sovereignty. 


200  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL. 

legal  normality,  or  even  the  application  of  the  principles  of  inter- 
national private  law,  have  not  been  possible.  Such  compatriots  have 
not  been  able  to  perform  any  civil  act  intended  to  take  effect  in  the 
rest  of  the  territory  of  Colombia  without  exposing  themselves  to 
an  unavoidable  refusal  on  the  part  of  our  national  authorities  to 
recognize  such  an  act.  In  Panama  the  passage  of  correspondence 
addressed  to  Colombia  has  suffered  difficulties  highly  prejudicial  to 
our  commerce.  Recriminations  for  what  had  taken  place  continued 
opening  an  abyss  which  ought  not  to  exist  between  two  neighboring 
peoples  still  united  by  indestructible  bonds,  even  though  such  bonds 
had  ceased  to  be  those  of  a  common  nationality.  Resolutely  and  even 
at  the  cost  of  the  sacrifice  of  our  self-love  it  was  necessary  to  throw 
across  this  abyss  a  bridge  that  will  facilitate  our  march  to  the  con- 
quests of  the  future.  There  in  that  very  territory  where  the  Co- 
lombian spirit  can  not  help  continuing  to  live  with  the  life  of  an  in- 
delible past,  although  now  no  longer  under  our  national  flag,  there 
is  being  accomplished  one  of  the  greatest  events  which  the  history 
of  humanity  registers,  an  event  certain  to  revolutionize  the  politi- 
cal and  commercial  world,  and  we.  at  the  very  borders  of  this  stream 
of  universal  civilization,  can  not  remain  impassive,  inactive,  silent,  ab- 
sorbed in  our  rancors,  hoping  for  the  promised  day  of  vengeance 
which  does  not  come — which  will  never  come.  Out  of  the  excess  of 
evil  we  should  snatch  a  good,  even  if  in  doing  it  we  are  forced  to  re- 
strain the  expression  of  sentiments  which,  although  they  may  be 
generous,  nevertheless  must  be  recast  in  the  mold  of  present  neces- 
sities and  advantages. 

Unhappily  the  mission  intrusted  to  Dr.  Mendoza  did  not  obtain 
the  desired  results.  He  was  received  by  the  President  of  the  United 
States  on  May  30.  1905,  and  continued  in  charge  of  his  post  until 
July,  1006. 

The  luminous  exposition  of  December  23,  1003,  which  the  man 
who  is  to-day  president  of  the  Republic  addressed  as  a  memorial  of 
complaints  to  the  Secretary  of  State  in  his  capacity  as  special  envoy, 
was  confirmed  in  the  various  notes  that  Dr.  Mendoza  addressed  to 
the  American  Government  in  defense  of  our  injured  rights.  By 
these  notes  were  added  new  pages  to  those  which  from  the  first 
moment  when  the  said  event  was  known  proved  eloquently  not  only 
the  soundness  and  the  moral  value  of  our  rights,  but  also  the  prac- 
tical impossibility  of  making  them  effective.  However,  the  negotia- 
tions began  by  Dr.  Mendoza  made  no  progress,  and  my  predecessor 
in  this  department  thought  it  advisable  to  recall  him  to  this  capital, 
with  the  object  of  consulting  in  regard  to  the  form  of  proceeding  to 
be  followed  in  the  future.  Thereupon  there  happened  those  inci- 
dents with  Dr.  Mendoza  that  the  people  are  already  familiar  with 
and  which  I  do  not  think  it  necessary  again  to  refer  to  here.  My 
predecessor,  Gen.  Vasquez  Cobo,  has  already  recited  them  in  the 
report  he  had  the  honor  of  presenting  to  you  in  your  1007  session. 

On  September  24.  1906,  the  Secretary  of  State  of  the  United 
States.  Elihu  Root,  came  to  Cartagena  on  a  final  visit,  the  last  one 
of  his  journey  through  South  America.  He  was  received  at  that 
port  by  the  minister  for  foreign  affairs,  Gen.  Vasquez  Cobo,  in 
virtue  of  the  especial  commission  of  the  President  of  the  Republic. 

Mr.  Root,  who  had  just  finished  visiting  the  South  American 
capitals,  amid   an   uninterrupted   ovation  during  which   he  did   not 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL.  201 

neglect  to  show  himself  the  determined  defender  of  the  great  prin- 
ciples of  international  law,  upon  which  the  well-being  of  nations 
depends,  was  received  by  our  minister  for  foreign  affairs  as  a  "  her- 
ald of  peace,  of  justice,  and  concord."  On  his  part,  Mr.  Root  mani- 
fested his — 

sincere  desire  that  all  questions  pending  between  tlie  Republic  of  Colombia 
and  the  United  States  of  America  lie  peacefully  arranged  in  conformity  with  a 
spirit  of  friendship,  of  mutual  esteem,  and  in  accord  with  the  honor  of  the  two 
countries. 

Gen.  Vasquez  Cobo  received  from  the  President  precise  instruc- 
tions to  present  to  the  Secretary  of  State  the  bases  upon  which  the 
desired  agreement  could  be  reached.  Upon  these  bases  have  pro- 
ceeded the  negotiations  that  have  so  seriously  preoccupied  this  Gov- 
ernment during  the  two  years  and  some  months  elapsed  since  the 
visit  of  Secretary  Root.  They,  with  slight  modifications,  are  to-day 
to  be  found  in  the  treaties  I  submit  to  your  consideration.  Secretary 
Root  has  loyally  fulfilled  the  promises  made  to  Gen.  Vasquez  Cobo 
in  Cartagena,  and  in  the  course  of  the  negotiations  of  these  treaties 
has  once  more  proven  his  spirit  of  nobility  and  justice  and  his  feel- 
ings of  warm  Americanism. 

Since  the  Cartagena  conference  the  negotiations  in  Washington 
have  been  in  charge  of  Enrique  Cortes,  plenipotentiary  named  to 
replace  Dr.  Diego  Mendoza.  Mr.  Cortes,  who  before  his  nomination 
as  Colombian  plenipotentiary  in  Washington  had  been  accredited 
during  the  ministry  of  Dr.  Climaco  Calderon  as  confidential  agent 
to  the  Government  of  the  United  States  with  the  duty  of  cooper- 
ating with  Dr.  Mendoza's  labors,  has  in  the  performance  of  his 
delicate  mission  shown  high  diplomatic  qualities,  and  I  take  pleasure 
in  recognizing  them  on  this  solemn  occasion  as  a  tribute  to  his  com- 
plicated labors — labors  as  patriotic  as  intelligent — and  croAvned  by 
a  result  which,  for  fear  of  prejudicing  a  cause  that  affects  me  so 
much,  I  would  not  dare  to  characterize  as  happy  had  not  that 
adjective  already  been  agreed  upon  by  the  impartial  and  unanimous 
evidence  of  the  American  diplomats  in  Washington.  In  reaching  this 
result  the  plenipotentiaries  of  the  United  States  in  Bogota.  John 
Barrett  and  Thomas  C.  Dawson,  have  aided  efficiently,  and  in  the 
performance  of  their  mission  these  gentlemen  have  shown  themselves 
to  be  sincere  and  decided  friends  of  Colombia. 

When  the  negotiations  had  been  renewed  by  our  plenipotentiaries. 
Dr.  Cortes,  though  he  found  a  determined  cooperation  on  the  part  of 
the  Secretary  of  State,  encountered  an  opposition  that  arose  from 
elements  interested  in  the  prolongation  of  the  indefinite  status  of 
matters,  and  that  you  will  easily  understand  without  the  necessity 
of  my  specifying.  Nevertheless,  our  legation  succeeded  in  reaching 
an  agreement  which  was  embodied  in  a  tripartite  protocol,  signed  in 
Washington  on  August  17.  1907,  by  the  plenipotentiaries  of  Colombia 
and  Panama  and  Mr.  Taft.  Secretary  of  War  of  the  United  State-. 
representing  the  Government  of  the  latter  Republic.  In  this  pro- 
tocol, whose  text  I  furnish  herewith,  were  embodied  the  substantial 
bases  for  the  celebration  of  a  treaty  to  be  made  immediately  there- 
after. When  the  text  of  this  protocol  was  received  the  President 
and  the  minister  for  foreign  affairs.  Gen.  Vazquez  Cobo,  gave  it  care- 
ful study,  and  the  result  of  this  examination  was  the  sending  of  sup- 
plementary instructions  to  our  minister  in  Washington  calling  atten- 


202  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA   CANAL. 

tion  to  certain  points  that  needed  explanation,  amplification,  or  modi- 
fication. 

After  these  instructions  had  been  received,  and  when  the  work  of 
embodying  the  clauses  of  the  August,  1907,  protocol  in  treaties  was 
already  under  way.  there  arose  the  discussion  over  the  proper  bound- 
ary to  be  fixed  between  the  Republics  of  Colombia  and  Panama. 
The  Colombian  Government,  knowing  the  validity  of  its  titles,  taught 
by  the  experience  of  what  our  boundary  disputes  had  signified  in  the 
course  of  our  national  existence,  and  wisely  looking  forward  to  what 
the  future  might  bring,  would  not  agree  for  a  single  moment  to  sign 
any  treaty  which  did  not  recognize  the  boundary  that,  according  to 
our  laws,  had  divided  the  Departments  of  Cauca  and  Panama.  The 
discussion  between  the  representatives  of  Colombia  and  Panama  on 
this  point  .assumed  a  character  that  caused  a  fear  that  the  negotia- 
tions might  fall  through,  and  the  Colombian  Government  believed  it 
its  duty  to  occupy  the  Territory  of  Jurado,  as  you  were  informed  in 
your  former  session.  An  expedition  under  the  command  of  distin- 
guished officers  of  our  army  traversed  the  virgin  forests  of  the  Choco 
with  an  intrepidity  only  to  be  compared  with  that  of  the  early  Spanish 
conquerors,  and  without  encountering  any  resistance  placed  on  those 
borders  of  the  Pacific  known  as  the  Territory  of  Jurado  the  sacred 
emblem  of  our  fatherland.  Our  authorities  have  since  continued  ex- 
ercising peaceful  jurisdiction  there. 

When  I  take  up  the  clause  of  the  treaty  between  Colombia  and 
Panama  in  reference  to  the  boundary  I  will  call  your  attention  in  a 
more  special  and  detailed  manner  to  this  very  important  matter. 
At  present  I  will  follow  the  history  of  the  negotiations. 

The  recovery  of  Jurado  by  our  forces  and  the  establishment  there 
of  our  officials  provoked  a  formal  demand  for  intervention  by  the 
United  States  from  the  Panamanian  Government.  This  demand 
was  based  upon  the  stipulations  of  the  treaty  of  November  18,  1903, 
between  those  two  Republics.  After  a  careful  examination  of  our 
evidences  of  title  and  a  special  report  of  Mr.  Taft,  Secretary  of  War. 
the  Government  of  the  United  States  was  of  the  opinion  that  the 
case  did  not  justify  a  compliance  with  the  demand  of  the  new  Re- 
public. In  spite  of  this  refusal,  the  negotiations  entered  upon  a 
period  of  complete  paralysis  that  only  ended  several  months  later, 
when  a  new  administration  in  Panama  replaced  the  one  presided  over 
by  Dr.  Amador  Guerro. 

Though  negotiations  were  recommended,  they  progressed  very 
-lowly,  and  the  moment  came  when  the  President  made  up  his  mind 
to  declare  his  decision  to  withdraw  the  Washington  legation  if  the 
di-agreeable  litigation  wdiich  for  more  than  five  years  had  embar- 
rassed the  Colombian  Government  and  people  should  not  immedi- 
ately end.  Happily,  at  last  an  agreement  was  reached  upon  the  stipu- 
lations contained  in  the  treaties  I  now  submit  to  you  and  which  were 
signed  by  our  plenipotentiary  in  Washington  in  accordance  with  the 
instructions  given  him. 

Such  is  the  synopsis  of  the  history  of  the  negotiations  in  Wash- 
ington which  followed  the  presentation  of  the  memorial  of  com- 
plaints of  December  23.  1903.  They  had  been  inspired  by  the  very 
author  of  that  memorial,  the  present  President  of  the  Republic,  who 
has  indefatigably  sought  satisfaction  for  the  national  honor.    In  this 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL.  203 

patriotic  desire  he  was  seconded  by  the  ministers,  my  distinguished 
predecessors.  Dr.  Climaco  Calderon  and  Gen.  Vazquez  Cobo. 
I  will  now  go  on  to  treat  of  the  texts  of  the  treaties : 

TREATY  WITH  THE   UNITED   STATES   OF   AMERICA. 

The  Colombian  and  American  negotiators  in  Washington  had  dis- 
cussed the  terms  of  a  general  treaty  of  friendship,  commerce,  and 
navigation  to  replace  the  treaty  of  1846  between  the  Republics  of 
the  United  States  and  Colombia.  In  such  a  treaty  it  was  understood 
that  there  should  be  incorporated  advantages  conceded  to  Colombia 
in  relation  with  the  Panama  Canal.  Afterwards  it  was  found  pref- 
erable to  adjourn  the  consideration  of  a  general  treaty  of  friendship 
and  to  proceed  simply  to  agree  upon  the  special  treaty  now  sub- 
mitted to  you,  which  was  the  one  most  imperiously  demanded  by  our 
interests,  and  which  we  may  consider  as  relatively  a  compensation 
for  our  injured  rights. 

There  was  another  powerful  consideration  for  preferring  not  to 
embody  in  a  general  treaty  of  friendship  the  clauses  relating  to  our 
advantages  in  the  canal.  An  ordinary  treaty  of  friendship,  com- 
merce, and  navigation  implies  the  usual  clause  for  denunciation  either 
by  fixing  a  limit  of  time  or  by  establishing  a  period  within  which 
it  may  be  denounced.  Such  a  provision  has  been  embodied  in  the 
project  that  the  Secretary  of  State,  Mr.  Root,  presented  to  our  pleni- 
potentiary in  Washington.  If.  therefore,  we  had  embodied  in  such 
a  treaty  the  clauses  relative  to  the  canal,  we  would  have  accepted  a 
limit  of  time  for  the  enjoyment  of  the  privileges  conceded  to  us.  and 
this  would  be  equivalent  to  notably  reducing  the  value  of  the  con- 
cession we  are  seeking.  The  advantages  conceded  to  us  are  now  per- 
petual in  their  character.  Nor  would  this  inconvenience  have  been 
avoided  by  giving  certain  of  the  clauses  of  a  general  treaty  the  char- 
acter of  perpetuity,  seeing  that,  although  this  method  of  procedure 
is  not  unknown  in  certain  treaties,  it  is  always  the  origin  of  dan- 
gerous distinctions  to  enact  in  a  treaty  what  part  shall  be  limited  in 
time  and  what  shall  not  be  subject  to  denunciation,  especially  when  a 
treaty  itself  shall  have  been  denounced  or  the  tinie  fixed  should  have 
elapsed. 

Article  2  is  as  follows : 

In  consideration  of  the  provisions  and  stipulations  heretofore  cited,  the 
following  has  been  agreed  upon  : 

The  Republic  of  Colombia  shall  have  liberty  at  all  times  to  transport 
through  the  ship  canal  the  United  States  is  constructing  through  the  Isthmus 
of  Panama,  troops,  military  materials,  and  war  ships  of  the  Republic  of 
Colombia  without  paying  any  duty  to  the  United  States,  even  in  the  case  of 
an  international  war  between  Colombia  and  any  other  country. 

During  the  construction  of  said  interoceanic  canal,  the  troops  and  military 
materials  of  the  Republic  of  Colombia,  even  in  case  of  an  international  war 
between  Colombia  and  any  other  country,  shall  be  transported  by  the  rail- 
road between  Ancon  and  Cristobal,  or  by  any  other  railroad  which  may  take 
its  place,  on  the  same  conditions  as  like  services  are  rendered  to  the  United 
States. 

The  officials,  agents,  and  employees  of  the  Government  of  Colombia  shall 
have  the  right  of  being  transported  gratuitously  by  the  said  railroad  through 
the  Isthmus  of  Panama,  notice  having  been  given  to  the  employees  of  the 
railroad  and  their  official  character  proven. 

The  foregoing  dispositions  of  this  article  shall  nevertheless  not  be  applicable 
in  case  of  war  between  Colombia  and  Panama. 


204  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL. 

This  article  was  intended  to  give  to  the  advantages  in  our  favor 
that  are  embodied  in  the  treaty  a  character  of  reciprocal  compensa- 
tion, although  by  themselves  they  perhaps  do  not  have  such  a  nature. 
Besides,  the  desire  on  the  part  of  the  Government  at  Washington 
that  the  treaties  should  have  such  a  character  was  very  natural  on 
account  of  many  reasons  which  will  not  escape  your  enlightened 
penetration.  Even  if  it  be  thought  that  the  renunciation  on  our 
part  embodied  in  article  6  does  not  equal  the  advantages  given  by 
the  other  articles,  such  advantages  could  not  be  called  gratuitous 
and  would  not  place  the  Government  at  Washington  in  the  posi- 
tion of  being  obliged  to  concede  like  advantages  should  they  be 
solicited  by  other  nations  under  the  favored-nation  clause. 

The  liberty  of  transporting  our  troops,  war  ships,  and  ammunition, 
through  the  Panama  Canal,  which  thereafter  is  given  us  by  the  said 
article  2,  is  of  the  greatest  importance  and  we  can  truly  say  that  it 
signifies  for  our  future  a  precious  concession.  It  would  be  such  for 
any  nation,  but  for  Colombia,  who  has  coasts  on  both  sides  of  the 
canal,  such  a  concession  signifies  in  effect  the  reestablishing  of  the 
continuity  of  these  coasts  and  the  adjacent  seas,  a  continuity  which 
the  segregation  of  Panama  pttt  us  in  the  position  of  being  obliged 
to  obtain.  The  liberty  of  trade  now  obtained  was  the  ideal  which 
our  negotiators  in  Washington  had  pursued  energetically  ever  since 
the  lamented  Dr.  Carlos  Martinez  Silva  reached  that  capital  with 
Colombia's  first  propositions.  As  you  may  see  by  the  reading  of 
those  propositions,  there  was  always  included  in  them  a  clause  con- 
cerning canal  traffic,  analogous  to  the  one  embodied  in  the  article 
of  the  treaty  which  I  am  treating.  Article  17  of  the  treaty  of  Jan- 
uary 22,  1903,  the  Herran-Haj7  treaty,  also  embodied  a  like  stipu- 
lation.    That  article  said: 

The  Government  of  Colombia  shall  have  the  right  <>f  transporting  its  ships, 
troops,  and  ammunitions  of  war  through  the  canal  at  all  times  without  paying 
any  duty.  This  exception  extends  to  the  service  railroad  as  to  the  transporting 
of  persons  in  the  service  of  the  Republic  of  Colombia  or  the  Department  of 
Panama,  and  of  the  police  charged  with  the  preservation  of  public  order  outside 
of  said  zone  as  well  as  of  their  baggage,  arms,  and  provisions. 

The  stipulation  of  the  present  treaty  is  broader  and  better  secures 
our  rights,  since  it  expressly  provides  that  the  liberty  of  traffic  exists 
even  in  the  case  of  an  international  war  betwTeen  Colombia  and  any 
other  country.  The  stipulation  contained  in  the  second  and  third 
clauses  of  article  2  of  the  present  treaty  in  relation  to  our  rights  con- 
cerning traffic  and  transportation  over  the  railroad  between  Ancon 
and  Cristobal  during  the  construction  of  the  interoceanic  canal  is 
also  broader  titan  the  analogous  provision  in  the  Herran-Hav  treaty. 

The  liberty  of  transit  for  our  Navy,  even  in  the  case  of  inter- 
national war.  places  us  in  an  advantageous  situation  in  respect  to 
all  the  nations  of  the  world,  although  by  the  concession  itself  and 
also  by  the  circumstances  already  noted  of  our  having  coasts  and 
important  posts  on  both  sides  of  the  canal,  this  privilege  will  become 
more  valuable  in  the  lapse  of  time,  and  the  day  will  come  in  which 
the  generations  that  succeed  us  will  esteem  it  in  all  its  value  for  the 
benefit  they  will  derive  from  it. 

Further  the  restrictions  embodied  in  the  last  clause  of  article  2 
in  the  case  of  a  war  between  Colombia  and  Panama  is  perfectly 
justifiable  in  view  of  the  stipulations  of  the  treaty  between  Panama 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL.  205 

and  the  United  States,  which  imposes  on  the  latter  Republic,  among 
other  duties,  that  of  guarding  the  integrity  of  the  former. 

Article  3  implies  a  concession  of  great  importance  for  our  eco- 
nomic and  commercial  interests,  especially  for  those  of  the  Depart- 
ments on  the  Atlantic  and  the  Pacific  Oceans.  What  is  stipulated 
in  said  article  can  be  of  the  greatest  advantage  for  our  cattle  in- 
dustry, especially  during  times  when  the  difficulties  placed  in  the 
way  of  the  exportation  of  cattle  to  Cuba  and  other  circumstances 
have  produced  a  real  oversupply  in  some  of  the  Colombian  markets. 

According  to  very  recent  data  there  are  50,000  consumers  in  the 
Canal  Zone  to  whom  the  zone  commissariat  sold  last  year  articles  of 
primary  necessity  to  the  value  of  $3,793,503  gold.  The  largest 
articles  of  this  consumption  are  meat,  flour,  tobacco,  potatoes,  and 
others  which  we  produce  under  conditions  that  permit  the  export  of 
most  of  them  to  the  Isthmus.  Therefore  a  rich  market  is  opened  to 
us  by  the  treaty  with  the  United  States,  and  it  is  opened  to  us  under 
the  most  favorable  conditions,  seeing  that  our  products  are  exempt 
from  the  payment  of  duties  just  as  are  products  coming  from  the 
United  States.  Not  even  the  Republic  of  Panama  has  conditions  as 
favorable  as  Colombia  in  the  matter  of  the  introduction  of  her 
products  into  the  Canal  Zone,  and  in  any  case  a  privilege  which 
would  mean  for  Panamanian  producers  and  merchants  only  a  com- 
petition, and  would  be  the  origin  of  daily  quarrels,  is,  for  Colombian 
producers  and  merchants,  simply  an  advantage  which  places  them  in 
exceptional  conditions. 

The  stipulation  relative  to  provisions  for  Colombian  laborers  not 
only  favors  our  numerous  compatriots  who  work  on  the  canal,  but 
is  also  a  means  of  encouraging  the  export  of  products  which  we  pro- 
duce in  great  abundance  on  our  coasts. 

Article  4  of  the  treaties  with  the  United  States  contains  two  stipu- 
lations not  less  important  than  the  former  ones — the  one  in  relation 
to  the  transportation  of  our  mail  sacks  and  the  one  in  reference  to 
the  transportation  of  our  products,  especially  Colombian  sea  salt. 

An  account  of  the  difficulties  which  we  have  encountered  in  regard 
to  the  passage  of  correspondence  coming  to  Colombia  by  the  Isthmus 
would  be  very  long.  Such  difficulties  were  only  slightly  ameliorated 
by  the  creation  of  an  agency  in  Panama  charged  with  the  duty  of 
watching  ovei  our  interests.  The  gratuitous  transportation  of  our 
mail  sacks  through  the  offices  at  Ancon  and  Cristobal  and  the  equality 
of  treatment  with  the  mail  sacks  of  the  United  States,  which  is  con- 
ceded for  them,  will  noticeably  better  the  previous  unfortunate  con- 
ditions. 

In  respect  to  sea  salt,  the  advantages  in  its  transport  ceded  by  the 
treaty — advantages  which  have  been  sought  energetically  from  the 
commencement  of  the  present  negotiations — will  put  the  Govern- 
ment in  the  position  of  continuing,  as  at  present,  furnishing  the 
Colombian  Departments  on  the  Pacific  with  the  sea  salt  produced  by 
our  Departments  on  the  Atlantic.  Seeing  that  the  Government  was 
able  to  carry  out  its  designs,  even  paying  the  high  freight  rate  on  the 
Panama  Railroad,  as  happened  last  year  with  large  shipments,  it  is 
evident  the  advantages  now  conceded  will  make  it  easy  for  the  Gov- 
ernment to  finally  effect  the  dislodgment  of  all  non-Colombian  salt 
from  Colombian  markets.  For  the  economic  future  of  the  Republic, 
so  intimately  connected  with  the  favorable  trade  balance  we  hope  to 


206  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL. 

obtain,  the  avoidance  of  the  payment  we  now  make  to  Peru  of  half 
a  million  dollars  annually  for  our  consumption  of  her  salt  will  be 
of  great  value,  and  we  can  do  this  without  endangering  our  purpose 
of  enabling  consumers  to  buy  this  article  at  a  really  low  price. 

The  recognition  of  the  transfer  of  10  annual  payments  of  $250,000 
each,  made  in  our  favor  by  the  Republic  of  Panama,  obliges  the 
United  States  to  deliver  these  installments  directly  to  the  Govern- 
ment of  Colombia.  In  the  course  of  the  negotiation's  we  obtained  the 
elimination  from  this  article  of  any  expression  which  might  give  it  a 
character  of  compensation  for  the  recognition  of  the  new  Eepublic, 
a  compensation  which  certainly  was  not  proper,  and  which  we  could 
not  accept  under  any  form. 

Article  0  embodies  the  concessions  and  recognitions  on  our  part 
which  appear  as  a  compensation  for  the  concessions  hereinbefore 
mentioned.  In  reality  the  right  of  refuge  for  ships  in  distress  is  one 
recognized  by  international  law,  and  does  not  constitute  a  conces- 
sion on  our  part,  seeing  that  the  restriction  is  imposed  that  such  a 
permission  shall,  in  case  of  Avar,  be  subject  to  the  laws  of  neutrality. 
The  concession  we  made  by  article  15  of  the  Herran-Hay  treaty  was 
much  broader,  since  it  did  not  contain  any  restriction  in  case  of  war, 
notwithstanding  the  commission  which  reported  on  said  treaty  in 
1903  did  not  make  any  objection  to  the  said  article. 

The  renuniciation  we  made  at  the  end  of  article  G  amounts  to  a 
renunciation  of  the  right  which  the  Republic  of  Colombia  formerly 
had  under  the  concessions  given  Luciano  Bonaparte  Wyse,  the  Uni- 
versal Panama  Canal  Co..  the  Panama  Railroad  Co.,  and  the  New 
Panama  Canal  Co.:  that  is  to  say.  the  same  renunciation  which  is 
referred  to  in  article  12  of  the  Herran-Hay  treaty. 

Although  it  may  have  been  logical  when  we  were  negotiating  in 
Washington  before  1903  to  discuss  >erenely  what  value  these  conces- 
sions had  for  us  before  accepting  the  compensation  offered,  at  the 
present  juncture  and  in  view  of  accomplished  and  universally  ac- 
cepted fact  there  is  nothing  for  us  to  do  but  to  bow  before  the 
absolute  power  of  the  inevitable,  leaving,  however,  evident  to  the 
world  that  the  laws  granting  these  conventions,  their  generosity 
and  breadth,  constitute  a  most  eloquent  proof  that  Colombia  never 
opposed  any  obstacle  to  the  civilizing  stream  that  was  trying  to  open 
the  splendid  throat  of  the  Isthmus  for  the  universal  benefit;  and  of 
how.  from  the  beginning  of  our  republican  life  until  the  day  when 
the  immortal  De  Lesseps  trod  our  beaches  and  was  welcomed  by  the 
enthusiastic  acclamations  of  the  Colombian  people,  being  received  as 
the  precursor  of  a  new  era  of  civilization,  our  governors  and  legisla- 
tors never  ceased  a  single  day  to  occupy  themselves  in  the  prompt 
realization  of  the  cherished  conception,  and  that  later,  when  the 
great  Frenchman  was  dead  and  his  gigantic  scheme  was  dying,  they 
preoccupied  themselves  in  like  manner.  Colombia  aided  him  by 
granting  new  and  almost  gratuitous  extensions  of  time  for  the  fin- 
ishing of  his  work,  and  a  support  that  the  world  had  already  denied 
him;  1835,  L838,  L851,  1852,  1858.  1866,  1868,  1870,  1876,  1878— there 
has  hardly  been  a  year  in  the  history  of  new  Colombia  that  does  not 
register  an  act.  a  law.  an  effort,  to  show  how  intense  were  national 
preoccupation  and  desires  in  favor  of  the  civilizing  work,  to  whose 
realization  an  effort  was  made  at  a  mournful  time  to  make  us  appear 
as  opposed — as  if  to  add  ridicule  to  injustice. 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE   PANAMA    CANAL.  207 

These  brief  reminiscences  may  appear  out  of  place  in  this  docu- 
ment were  it  not  that  the  solemnity  of  the  present  moment  requires 
them  as  a  justification  of  the  memory  of  those  many  illustrious  Co- 
lombians who.  with  patriotic  zeal  and  altruistic  purposes,  took  part 
in  the  various  negotiations  relative  to  the  Panama  Canal  and  rail- 
load . 

Article  7  refers  to  the  approaching  revision  of  the  184(5  treaty, 
seeing  that,  as  I  have  previously  indicated  to  you,  it  was  not  possible 
or  deemed  advantageous  to  include  the  clauses  of  the  present  treaty 
among  those  of  a  general  treaty  of  friendship.  In  the  new  treaty 
stipulations  should  be  included  securing  the  putting  into  effect  the 
principles  of  arbitration.  Following  its  instructions  from  the  Gov- 
ernment, our  legation  has  worked  to  secure  its  immediate  signing. 
The  Republic  proves  its  determination  undeviatingly  to  continue  the 
honorable  traditions  of  our  foreign  office,  which  come  down  from  the 
glorious  epoch  of  Bolivar  and  the  Great  Colombia. 

Article  8  of  the  treaty  establishes  the  interdependence  of  the  three 
treaties — ours  with  the  United  States,  ours  with  Panama,  and  the 
one  of  the  latter  Republic  with  the  United  States.  If  one  of  the 
three  treaties  fail,  all  three  fail. 

Further,  this  interdependence  was  inevitable.  On  one  side,  the 
United  States  recognized  the  transfer  to  us  of  certains  sums  it  owes 
to  Panama;  it  was,  therefore,  necessary  that  this  transfer  be  per- 
fected by  the  acceptance  of  the  creditor  and  debtor  nations.  Fur- 
ther, the  existing  treaty  between  the  United  States  and  Panama 
provides  that  the  annual  payments  of  $250,000  should  begin  to  be 
paid  February  26,  1912,  while,  according  to  the  treaty  agreed  upon 
with  Colombia,  these  installments  will  begin  on  February  26,  190£, 
the  date  when  the  transfer  begins  to  run  in  our  favor.  It  is,  there- 
lore,  necessary  that  the  treaty  altering  such  conditions  and  which 
further  implies  an  increase  of  four  years  of  payments  (that  is  to  say, 
a  million  dollars)  be  approved  by  Panama  and  the  United  States  in 
order  to  be  effective. 

An  intimate  connection  is  very  natural  between  treaties  intended 
as  a  solution  as  far  as  possible  of  difficulties  which  arose  and  were 
developed  inextricably  and  as  a  consequence  of  the  same  facts. 

TREATY   WITH    PANAMA. 

The  principal  articles  of  this  treaty  are  those  which  provide  for 
the  recognition  of  the  new  Republic  by  Colombia,  the  sum  to  be  paid 
us  for  the  exemption  of  Panama  from  responsibilities  as  to  the  pay- 
ment of  our  foreign  and  domestic  debts,  that  which  fixes  the  boun- 
daries between  the  two  Republics,  and  that  which  determines  the 
conditions  under  which  Colombians  and  Panamans,  born  in  the 
territory  of  either  of  the  two  Republics  before  November  3,  1903, 
and  who  on  that  date  resided  within  the  territory  of  the  other,  may 
choose  their  nationality.  The  article  relative  to  the  recognition  of 
the  Republic  of  Panama  requires  no  reasonings  or  commentaries. 
So  far  as  we  are  concerned  it  does  not  even  permit  them.  I  would 
fear  that  the  weakness  of  my  words  might  not  do  justice  to  the  im- 
mensity of  the  sorrow  and  misfortune  of  our  fatherland.  If  I  should 
say  anything  to-day  about  this  article,  it  would  be  only  to  expres- 
the  wish  that  the  people  who  formed  with  ourselves  during  82  year1- 


208  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

a  single  national  entity  should  now  be  honored  and  respected,  and 
to  express  my  hope  that  the  beautiful  star  which  has  been  sepa- 
rated from  the  Colombian  constellation  may  shine  with  an  inextin- 
guishable light  in  the  heaven  of  American  democracy. 

By  article  12  of  the  treaty  the  Republic  of  Panama  cedes  us  10 
annual  payments,  of  $250,000  each,  in  exchange  for  the  recognition 
made  by  Colombia  that  said  Republic  shall  have  no  obligation  or 
responsibility  to  the  holders  of  the  foreign  and  domestic  debt  of 
the  Republic  of  Colombia,  or  to  the  Republic  of  Colombia  on  account 
of  the  debts  and  reclamations  originating  said  debts.  Colombia 
assumes  all  responsibility  for  such  debts  and  assumes  the  obligation 
of  holding  Panama  harmless  on  account  of  them. 

I  will  not  enter  upon  arithmetical  calculations  to  try  to  elucidate 
whether  the  proportion  adopted  was  or  was  not  a  just  one,  whether 
taking  population  as  the  basis  of  the  division  as  was  done  when  the 
debt  of  old  Colombia  was  distributed  by  the  Pombo-Michelena  con- 
vention of  December  23,  1884,  or  whether  taking  other  elements  as  a 
basis  for  calculation.  For  us  the  amount  agreed  upon  has  a  second- 
ary interest  in  comparison  with  the  moral  result  obtained — that  is  to 
say,  the  obtaining  of  a  recognition  of  the  obligation  to  contribute 
to  the  payment  of  debts  which,  as  was  natural,  also  rested  upon  the 
separated  territory — debts  which  Colombia  had  recognized  as  a  whole 
and  was  regularly  paying  in  accordance  with  her  agreements  and 
existing  laws. 

By  article  1  of  the  treaty,  the  two  Republics  reciprocally  declare 
themselves  free  of  all  pecuniary  responsibility  or  obligation  of  what- 
ever nature;  but  this  exemption  does  not  touch  the  rights  and  in- 
dividual actions  of  citizens  of  either-  of  the  two  Republics,  providing 
that  such  reclamations  can  be  considered  valid  in  accordance  with 
the  laws  now  in  force  and  those  in  force  on  November  3,  1903.  This 
provision  of  exemption  guarantees  both  Republics  against  ill-founded 
claims. 

By  article  5  of  the  treaty.  Panama's  abandonment  of  every  right 
and  title  to  the  50,000  shares  in  the  New  Panama  Canal  Co.  is  con- 
firmed. You  already  know  the  issue  of  the  laborious  litigation  con- 
cerning these  shares — a  litigation  intrusted  from  the  beginning  to  the 
indefatigable  as  well  as  intelligent,  enlightened,  and  patriotic  efforts 
of  Gen.  Jorge  Holguin  who,  to-day  present  in  the  body  of  the  legisla- 
tive assembly,  can  give  you.  should  it  be  necessary,  an  account  of  the 
tremendous  efforts  that  he  and  his  coadjutors,  Gen.  Marceliano 
Vargas  and  Dr.  Juan  E.  Manrique.  made  in  order  to  reach  the  final 
result  which  safeguarded  our  honor  and  our  interests. 

Article  6  settles,  in  accordance  with  international  principles  and 
practices,  one  of  the  problems  which  naturally  resulted  from  the 
separation  of  the  inhabitants  of  such  territory,  when  it  constituted 
itself  into  a  new  nationality.  The  right  of  choice  of  nationality 
which  article  0  establishes  in  favor  of  those  individuals  born  before 
November  3.  L903,  within  the  territory  that  to-day  belongs  to  the 
Republic  of  Panama,  and  who  on  the  said  date  were  residing  within 
the  territory  that  to-day  belongs  to  the  Republic  of  Colombia,  and 
vice  versa,  in  favor  of  the  individuals  born  within  the  territory  of 
Colombia  who  were  in  like  manner  residing  in  Panama,  constitutes 
an  exception  to  the  ordinary  rule  of  choice  of  nationality  established 
bv  international  law  and  which  our  constitution  likewise  recognizes. 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL.  209 

a  rule  that  does  not  require  residence.  In  order  to  determine  the 
right  to  the  choice  the  treaty  permits,  only  two  elements  are  taken 
into  consideration ;  first,  birth ;  and  second,  residence  on  the  date 
when  the  separation  took  place.  So,  therefore,  a  native  Panamanian, 
who  on  the  said  date  was  residing  within  our  present  territory,  may 
now  choose  Colombian  nationality  and  this  whether  or  not  he  has 
continued  to  be  domiciled  in  Colombia.  But  a  native  Panamanian 
who  did  not  have  such  a  residence  can  not  choose  Colombian  na- 
tionality unless  in  accordance  with  our  constitution;  that  is  to  say, 
by  adopting  said  nationality  by  applying  for  letters  of  naturalization. 
This  provision  of  the  treaty,  providing  for  the  collective  naturaliza- 
tion of  Panamanians  and  Colombians,  establishes  nothing  extra- 
ordinary, seeing  that  we  know  of  like  regulations  having  been  adopted 
when  the  differences  were  settled  which  arose  on  account  of  the 
cession  of  the  Territory  of  Louisiana,  the  annexation  of  Texas  and 
Hawaii,  when  the  treaties  of  Florida  and  Frankfort  were  celebrated, 
when  the  treaties  between  Spain  and  the  United  States  were  settled 
after  the  war  of  1898,  and  in  many  other  Cases  which  it  would  be 
too  long  to  enumerate. 

Article  9  determines  the  frontier  between  the  two  Republics.  This 
question  of  boundary  was  one  to  which  the  Government  gave  the 
greatest  attention,  as  I  have  already  indicated,  on  account  of  its  in- 
trinsic importance.  At  all  hazards,  the  Government  desired  to  de- 
termine the  boundary,  and  that  such  determination  should  lie  made 
in  accordance  with  what  Colombia  insisted  should  be  considered  as 
the  norm  of  demarcation;  that  is  to  say. the  Colombian  law  of  June  9, 
1855,  which  fixes  the  following  limits  between  the  Departments  of 
Cauca  and  Panama  : 

From  Cape  Tiburon  to  the  head  waters  of  the  River  Miel,  and  following  the 
Cordillera  l>y  the  Cerro  de  Gandi  to  the  Sierra  de  Chugargun,  then  the  Sierra 
de  Mali,  following  down  the  Cerros  de  Nigue  to  the  Heights  of  Aspave.  and 
from  there  to  the  Pacific  between  Cocalito  and  La  Ardita. 

The  Panaman  Legation  based  its  claims  on  the  decree  by  the 
President  of  New  Granada,  Thomas  C.  D.  Mosquera  (of  August  7, 
1847).  This  decree  provisionally  fixed  the  boundaries  of  the  terri- 
tory of  Darien  as  follows :  On  the  east,  the  River  Atrato  from  its 
mouth  to  its  confluence  with  the  Napipi;  on  the  south,  the  latter  river 
throughout  its  course,  and  a  straight  line  from  its  source  to  the  Bay 
of  Cupica  and  the  Pacific  Ocean. 

In  contending  for  the  boundaries  according  to  the  decree  of  Gen. 
Mosquera.  the  Panaman  Legation  in  Washington  in  reality  did 
nothing  more  than  revive  the  old  lawsuit  between  the  State  of  Cauca 
and  Panama,  a  lawsuit  which  the  Supreme  Federal  Court  decided 
against  the  latter  on  January  1:2.  1864. 

The  only  point  upon  which  we  could  permit  discussion  was  on 
the  determination  of  whether  this  or  that  portion  of  territory  was 
or  was  not  included  within  the  line  thus  fixed,  such  line  having  been 
accepted  in  principle.  This  is  what  has  been  done  with  the  region 
that  extends  from  the  Heights  of  Aspave  to  the  Pacific  Ocean;  that 
is  to  say.  the  region  of  Jurado.  Although  the  line  provided  by  the 
law  of  1855  must  end  between  Cocalito  and  La  Ardita  on  the  Pacific 
Ocean,  said  law  does  not  fix  the  exact  point  of  such  termination. 
Such  a  circumstance,  added  to  various  others  which  made  it  conven- 

42112— S.  I  >OC.  474.  (13-2 14 


210  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL. 

ient  for  our  interests  to  accept  arbitration  in  the  manner  provided 
for  by  the  treaty,  decided  the  Government  to  agree  on  the  terms  of 
article  9.  This  article  leaves  our  territorial  rights  perfectly  assured 
over  the  splendid  region  drained  by  the  Atrato  and  its  tributaries, 
a  region  which  is  undoubtedly  one  of  the  most  valuable  of  the  terri- 
tory of  Colombia.  Further,  the  constitution  of  the  tribunal  of  arbi- 
tration, immediately  after  the  ratification  of  the  treaty  and  the  brief 
periods  fixed  for  the  reaching  of  the  decision,  still  further  guarantees 
us,  if  it  is  necessary,  that  no  disagreeable  questions  will  remain  to 
be  resolved  in  the  future  between  the  two  Republics. 

Article  7  of  the  treaty,  which  provides  that  neither  of  the  two 
Republics  shall  admit  to  form  part  of  its  nationality  any  part  of  the 
territory  of  the  other  which  may  be  separated  by  force,  embodies  a 
prohibition  which  it  would  be  very  desirable  to  be  adopted  as  a  prin- 
ciple of  American  international  law. 

You  will  permit  me,  in  conclusion,  and  as  a  supplement  to  the 
succinct  analysis  which  I  have  just  made  of  the  two  treaties,  to  say 
something  to  you  in  regard  to  their  negotiation  as  a  whole. 

There  have  been  those  who  believe  that  the  question  originating 
in  the  session  of  Panama  is  to  be  carefully  kept  alive  by  us  as  a  herit- 
age hereafter  to  be  converted  into  an  inexhaustive  mine  of  various 
benefits  for  Colombia.  It  was  said  that  we  ought  to  leave  to  time 
and  its  evolutions  and  its  possibilities  the  arrangement  of  the  break 
of  November  3.  1903.  The  Government,  on  the  contrary,  believed 
that  the  protection  of  the  great  interests  of  the  Republic  which  the 
Constitution  had  intrusted  to  it  required  it  to  seek  a  prompt  solution 
of  the  important  problems  whose  gravity  would  not  diminish  by 
delaying  their  solution.  Isolation  is  perhaps  possible  between  two 
widely  separated  countries,  but  it  is  not  admissible  for  two  neigh- 
boring peoples,  between  whom  exists  in  fact  a  daily  interchange 
which  in  our  own  interests  ought  to  be  normalized.  Communion 
between  the  peoples  of  the  world  is  to-day  so  intimate  on  account 
of  the  bonds  which  the  development  of  civilization  has  created  that 
it  is  not  now  possible,  as  it  was  formerly,  to  adjourn  indefinitely  the 
arrangement  of  situations  arising  from  facts.  International  history 
during  the  last  decades  shows  this  clearly  to  us,  and  it  would  be  in 
vain  for  us  to  undertake  to  be  blind  to  the  lessons  of  history  and  to 
refuse  to  recognize  its  philosophy  by  opposing  to  the  universal  acqui- 
escence of  the  nations  of  the  world  a  stubborn  negative  which  would 
injure  our  own  interests.  The  first  thing  to  do  is,  without  any 
delay,  to  trace  between  the  fragment  of  territory  wh;ch  has  been  seg- 
regated from  our  fatherland  and  the  territory  that  remains  to  us  the 
line  which  will  indicate  the  boundary  that  can  not  be  crossed  with- 
out once  again  attacking  our  sovereignty.  In  view  of  the  kind  of 
territorial  guaranty  that  the  Republic  of  the  United  States  has 
given  Panama,  no  Colombian  can  disguise  from  himself  the  advisa- 
bility of  knowing  immediately  just  how  far  this  guarantee  extends. 

The  feeling  in  favor  of  our  rights  which  at  first  seemed  to  appear 
among  some  North  American  thinkers  and  which  was  the  origin  of 
a  pleasant  hope  did  not  increase  at  all.  The  dignified  though  warm 
appeal  made  by  the  Chief  Magistrate  of  Colombia,  the  enlightened 
Marroquin,  in  his  telegram  of  November  3.  1903.  to  the  President  of 
the   Senate  in  Washington,  when   he  said:  "In   behalf  of   justice, 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE   PANAMA    CANAL.  211 

Colombia  appeals  to  the  dignity  and  honor  of  the  American  Senate 
and  people,"  remains  to  this  day  without  any  echo,  and  the  verdict 
of  the  American  people  has  rather  confirmed  than  condemned  the 
international  policy  of  their  Government. 

Why,  therefore,  adjourn  the  matter  if  adjournment  up. to  now  has 
in  no  way  bettered  our  painful  situation  ? 

When  the  Herran-Hay  treaty  was  presented  m  1903  in  the  Co- 
lombian Senate,  the  hall  of  the  legislature  resounded  with  the  elo- 
quent voice  of  Colombian  patriotism  that  saw  in  this  treaty  a  mani- 
fest attack  on  our  Constitution  and  on  the  most  important  attributes 
of  our  sovereignty.  There  have  been  few  times  in  the  course  of  our 
national  life  when  parliamentary  debates  have  been  inspired  by  such 
a  sacred  fire,  and  very  few  times  when  what  was  loyally  believed  to 
be  the  defense  of  national  interests  honor  was  defended  in  our 
tribune  with  greater  heat. 

History  will  tell  whether  the  Senators  of  1903  were  or  were  not 
mistaken,  but  it  will  always  show  that  their  purposes  were  high  and 
their  patriotism  pure.  Frangi,  non  flecti,  was  their  motto.  We  who 
as  governors  or  legislators  are  to-day  about  to  put  an  end  to  this 
vitally  important  litigation,  perhaps  would  have  also  placed  our 
austere  negative  on  the  pan  of  the  balance  in  view  of  the  problem 
and  the  circumstances  of  that  time,  even  though  we  may  have  feared 
that  the  shock  of  such  a  negative  with  the  great  interests  that  were 
already  interested  in  our  Isthmus,  might  have  destroyed  our  sover- 
eignty there.  Let  us  render  this  tribute  of  justice  to  the  Senate  of 
1903  and  hope  that  posterity  will  likewise  do  so. 

It  will  be  for  that  same  posterity,  it  will  be  for  time  with  what 
we  call  its  surprises  and  which  really  are  nothing  except  the  logical 
consequences  of  historical  fact,  to  say  whether  the  shock  that  then 
broke  the  territory  of  the  nation,  and — something  far  worse — that 
broke  the  profoundest  and  most  delicate  national  Colombian  feel- 
ings, was  nothing  more  than  the  first  of  the  shocks  which  perhaps 
will  take  place  between  nations,  between  continents,  between  civili- 
zations, even  there  amidst  those  same  seas  to  whose  borders  Boliver 
once  summoned  the  nations  to  unite  themselves  around  the  fecund 
standard  of  law  and  peace.  February  5,  1900,  the  date  of  the  Hay- 
Pauncefote  treaty,  which  replaced  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty,  and 
the  3d  of  November,  1903,  the  date  of  the  secession  of  Panama,  are 
perhaps  nothing  more  than  the  initial  dates  of  a  new  and  vitally 
important  chapter  in  the  history  of  humanity. 

Following  out  its  marvelous  purposes,  Providence  reaches  its 
serene  solution  of  the  most  arduous  problems  of  nations  as  well  as 
individuals;  from  evil  it  derives  good,  as  it  extracts  as  from  the 
germs  of  to-day's  dissolution  the  life  of  to-morrow.  The  profound 
emotion  that  convulsed  the  Colombian  people,  Government,  and 
Congress  in  1903,  has  become  less  and  less  before  the  unscaleable  wall 
of  accomplished  and  accepted  facts;  the  problem  has  been  resolved 
by  the  joint  action  of  inevitable  causes;  the  painful  alternative  which 
the  Senate  of  1903  had  before  it,  already  does  not  exist  for  you, 
and  I  do  not  believe  I  am  mistaken  in  saying  that  the  very  Senators 
of  1903,  were  they  to-day  in  your  chairs,  would  give  their  approval 
to  the  treaties  I  am  submitting  to  you.  Such  approval  has,  with 
complete  realization  of  his  responsibility,  been  given  by  the  author 


212  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA  CANAL. 

of  the  memorial  of  complaints,  who  is  to-day  President  of  the  Re- 
public. Feeling  upon  himself  all  the  weight  of  duty  in  these  solemn 
moments,  he  may  recall  the  words  of  Thiers  when  the  latter,  finding 
it  necessary  to  temper  by  the  serene  calm  of  the  negotiator  the  in- 
dignant speech  of  the  orator  protesting  against  the  dismemberment 
of  France,  exclaimed :  "  I  would  have  believed  that  Providence  might, 
have  spared  me  the  performance  of  such  a  painful  duty." 

Honorable  deputies,  the  Executive  trusts  the  serenity  of  your 
high  opinion,  and  through  me  presents  you  the  accompanying  drafts 
of  laws  ratifying  the  treaties. 

Francisco  Jose  Urrtttta. 

Bogota,  February  %2,  1909. 


Minister  Davison  to  Secretary  of  State. 

[Telegram.] 

American  Legation, 

Bogota,  March  1, 1909. 
Colombian  minister  at  Washington  has  already  telegraphed  rati- 
fication by  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.  Opposition  developing. 
The  enemies  (?)  of  the  President  attacking  the  assembly,  demanding 
elected  congress  and  the  amendment  Jurado  ( ?)  clause.  Ratification 
is  certain  unless  Reyes  weakens.    Final  vote,  it  is  hoped,  by  Friday. 

Dawson. 


Minister  Davison  to  Secretary  of  Stale. 

[Telegram.] 

A m erica n  Legation. 
Bogota,  March  10,  1909. 
March    10.  0  p.  in.     Student    demonstrations  against   the  treaties 
yesterday.     The  President  of  Colombia   has  issued   a  decree  to-day 
confiding  maintenance  order  to  minister  of  war. 

Motion  to  postpone  consideration  of  the  treaties  has  been  defeated, 
40  to  fi. 

Dawson. 


Minister  Dawson  to  Secretary  of  State. 

[Telegram.] 

A  merican  Legation, 
Bogota.  March  1  'h  /Of/0. 
March  L4,  12  noon.  Jose.  Holgnin  assumed  presidency  13th.  Anti- 
Reyes  street  riots  all  day  and  all  night.  Holgnin  postponed  indefi- 
nitely consideration  of  the  treaties.  Reyes  rcassumed  presidency 
morning  of  14th:  Vasquez  Cobo.  minister  of  war.  State  of  siege 
declared  in  Bogota.  Nicholas  Perdomo  commanding  troops.  Artil- 
lery in  plaza.  Rumors  disturbances  in  the  Provinces.  Civil  war 
possible.     At  the  present  moment,  city  quiet. 

Dawson. 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA   CANAL.  213 

Si <  t>  tary  Knox  to  American  Minister  at  Boy  of". 

[Telegram.] 

Department  of  State, 
Washington,  March  15.  1909. 
Continue  to  report  by  telegraph.     It   would  be  deplorable  if  this 
outbreak  should  disturb  the  ratification  of  the  treaties. 

Knox. 


Colombian  Minister  to  Secretary  Knox. 

No.  52.]  Legation  of  Colombia, 

Washington,  March  16,  1909. 

Sir:  Referring  to  the  ratification  by  Colombia  of  the  treaties  con- 
cluded with  the  United  States  of  America  and  Panama.  I  beg  to  in- 
form your  excellency  as  follows: 

On  the  8th  instant  I  had  a  cable  from  Bogota  stating  that  the  treaties 
should  be  presented  immediately  to  the  National  Assembly,  with  a 
very  elaborate  report  from  the  committee  demanding  their  immediate 
ratification  without  modification.  The  cable  added  that  the  Govern- 
ment expected  the  treaties  should  be  approved  by  the  unanimous 
vote  of  the  Assembly.  I  did  not  hear  anything  else  until  the  evening 
of  the  14th  instant,  when  I  received  a  cable  stating  that  the  Govern- 
ment had  decided,  in  view  of  numerous  manifestations  of  public 
opinion  in  the  country,  to  suspend  the  consideration  of  the  treaties 
by  the  National  Assembly  and  submit  them  to  a  new-elected  Con- 
gress, that  should  be  called  for  immediately.  The  cable  adds  that 
the  Government  expected  by  this  process  to  obtain  a  more  solemn 
approval  of  the  whole  nation.  There  was  a  strong  opinion  in  favor 
of  the  treaties,  and  the  Government  were  exercising  their  best  en- 
deavors, feeling  confident  that  they  should  be  approved.  The  Gov- 
ernment desires  to  inform  you  of  the  contents  of  this  cable. 

On  receiving  this  cable  I  felt  very  uneasy  and  became  sure  that 
something  had  taken  place  which  had  altered  the  course  of  the  busi- 
ness as  I  had  been  previously  advised. 

I  immediate^  cabled,  demanding  explanation,  expressing  my  re- 
gret at  the  change  advised,  and  urging  for  an  immediate  answer. 

On  the  following  day,  yesterday,  the  secretary  of  the  legation 
called  on  Mr.  Wilson  to  inquire  if  you  had  any  news. 

Mr.  Wilson  was  good  enough  to  give  us  a  copy  of  the  cable  you 
had  received.  It  appeared  evident  that  my  surmise  was  correct,  and 
that  something  serious  had  happened.  So  far  I  have  received  no 
further  news  which  I  am  expecting  instantly. 

I  beg,  however,  to  call  your  attention  to  the  fact,  which  is  appar- 
ent by  the  contents  of  the  cables  mentioned,  that  the  Government 
continues  strenuously  to  bring  about  the  final  approval  of  the  treaties, 
assuming  energetic  action  on  the  matter  in  a  loyal  and  straightfor- 
ward manner. 

I  am  expecting  further  developments;  meanwhile  my  opinion  is 
that  although  a  little  later  than  was  anticipated  the  treaties  will  be 
approved  without  any  modification  whatever. 


214  DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

I  have  the  honor  to  present  to  your  excellency  the  assurance  of 
my  highest  consideration. 

Enrique  Cortes. 
Hon.  Philander  C.  Knox, 

Secretary  of  State,  State  Department. 


Minister  Dawson  to  Secretary  of  State. 

[Telegram.] 

American  Legation, 
Bogota,  March  16, 1909. 
March  16 — 5  p.  m.  City  continues  quiet.  No  confirmation  Satur- 
day's rumors  provincial  disturbances.  The  assembly  meeting  daily. 
Has  not  acted  upon  Holguin's  attempted  postponement  treaties. 
President  of  Colombia  just  announced  to  the  diplomatic  corps  that 
he  has  determined  to  remain  as  such  and  that  the  assembly  would 
reject  his  resignation.  The  agitation  against  the  treaties  dying 
down.     I  am  still  hopeful  ratification. 

Dawson. 


Secretary  Knox  to  Minister  Dawson. 

[Telegram.] 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  March  17,  1909. 
Date.  Your  telegram  of  March  16,  5  p.  m.,  received.  You  may 
informally  express  to  President  Reyes  our  cordial  sympathy  and  our 
confidence  that  he  will  do  all  possible  to  bring  about  the  approval 
of  the  treaties,  and  thus  consummate  the  good  relationship  we  so 
earnestly  desire. 

Knox. 


Minister  Dawson  to  Secretary  Knox. 

[Telegram.] 

American  Legation, 

Bogota  (undated) 
(Received  Mar.  18,  1909). 
It  is  important,  and  perhaps  decisive  for  ratification,  that  the 
Panama  minister  and  the  Colombian  minister  exchange  notes  de- 
fining limits  of  Jurado.  Opposition  is  also  laying  stress  on  am- 
biguity sixth  article  of  the  treaty  with  the  United  States,  caused  by 
placing  the  comma  after  "  Refucio  "  instead  of  "  Comercio." 

Minister  for  foreign  affairs  of  Colombia  requests  me  to  ask  au- 
thorization to  hold  myself  in  readiness  to  write  a  note  saying  that  use 
conceded  is  understood  to  be  only  as  that  right  of  refuge  recognized 
by  international  law,  to  be  subject  to  the  usages  established  by  inter- 
national law  with  regard  to  right  of  refuge,  and  not  as  involving  any 
breach  of  Colombian  sovereignty  over  her  ports. 

Dawson. 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA   CANAL.  215 

Secretary/  Knox  to  Minister  Dawson. 

[Telegram.] 

Department  or  State, 
Washington,  March  19,  1909. 

Date.  Your  undated  telegram  received  18th  concerning  punctua- 
tion and  intent  of  article  6.  Colombian  minister  has  also  brought 
the  matter  to  my  attention.  The  comma  in  the  Spanish  text  is  ob- 
viously misplaced.  Equivalence  to  sense  of  the  English  text  requires 
comma  after  comercio  and  none  after  refugio.  The  change  can  be 
initialed  on  the  original  by  the  Colombian  minister  and  Mr.  Root, 
and  you  can  do  the  same  with  the  Colombian  minister  for  foreign 
affairs  on  his  text. 

You  are  authorized  to  write  the  Colombian  minister  in  the  sense 
you  suggest  concerning  the  use  of  Colombian  ports  for  shelter  in 
case  of  stress  or  need  for  vessels  using  or  bound  for  the  canal.  We 
understand  that  all  the  first  part  of  article  6  does  is  to  recognize  the 
long-standing  doctrine  of  international  law  concerning  the  friendly 
shelter  of  vessels  in  stress  or  need  plus  a  gracious  waiver  of  anchor- 
age or  tonnage  dues  which  Colombia  could  rightfully  impose  by 
virtue  of  her  sovereignty  over  such  ports. 

Knox. 


[Memorandum.] 

Department  of  State, 

March  19,  1909. 

Referring  to  Mr.  Dawson's  telegram. 

The  comma  in  the  Spanish  text  of  article  6  is  obviously  mis- 
placed. To  render  the  sense  of  the  equivalent  English  text,  the 
comma  should  be  after  "  comercio  "  and  there  should  be  none  after 
"  refugio."  This  change  is  immaterial  and  can  be  made  by  Mr. 
Cortes  and  Mr.  Root  simply  initialing  it  on  the  margin  of  the 
original  signed  treaty  here.1 

Article  6  merely  grants  the  use  of  Colombian  ports  as  places  of 
refuge  (shelter  would  have  been  a  better  word)  in  case  of  stress  or 
need,  for  vessels  passing  through  or  bound  to  pass  through  the  canal. 

That  such  use  is  merely  by  favor  and  without  prejudice  to  the 
sovereignty  of  Colombia  is  shown  by  the  rest  of  the  article  which 
(1)  subjects  the  granted  favor  to  Colombia's  duty  to  enforce  neu- 
trality in  time  of  war;  and  (2)  by  granting  the  further  favor  of 
exemption  from  anchorage  or  tonnage  dues,  which,  without  such 
concession,  Colombia  would  collect  in  virtue  of  her  sovereignty. 

I  can  see  no  possible  objection  to  Mr.  Dawson  exchanging  notes 
with  the  Colombian  minister  for  foreign  affairs  in  the  sense  of  the 
concluding  paragraph  of  his  telegram.  We  understand  that  all  the 
article  does  is  to  recognize  the  standing  doctrine  of  international  law 
concerning  the  friendly  shelter  of  vessels  in  stress  or  need  plus  the 

1  Mr.  Dawson  and  the  minister  can  do  the  same  at  Bogota. 


216  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL. 

concession  of  exemption  from  anchorage  or  tonnage  dues  in  such 
case. 

(Note  that  the  privilege  is  not  in  favor  of  American  vessels  as 
such,  but  favors  all  vessels,  of  whatever  flag,  using  or  bound  to  use 
the  canal.) 


Secretary  Knox  to  Minister  Dawson. 

[Telegram.] 

Department  of  State, 
Washington,  March  19, 1909. 
Referring  to  your  telegram  received  18th  and  department's  reply 
of  to-day.  We  sincerely  hope  that  any  difficulty  about  defining  the 
limits  of  Jurado  will  not  interfere  with  the  ratification  of  the  treaty. 
There  seems  to  be  some  difficulty  here  about  the  Panama  minister 
being  willing  to  exchange  notes,  although  I  have  not  yet  had  an 
opportunity  to  talk  to  him. 

Knox. 


Secretary  Knox  to  Colombian  minister. 

Washington,  March  19,  1909. 

Sir:  In  your  recent  conversations  with  me  you  have  acquainted 
me  with  the  telegraphic  advices  you  have  received  from  your  Gov- 
ernment concerning  questions  of  punctuation  and  of  interpretation 
which  have  arisen  with  respect  to  article  6  of  the  United  States- 
Colombia  treaty,  signed  January  9  last,  and  which  questions  it 
would  appear  advisable  to  dispose  of  in  order  to  facilitate  the  con- 
sideration of  that  convention  by  the  Congress  of  Colombia. 

Minister  Dawson  has  also  cabled  to  me  in  the  same  sense. 

Upon  examination  of  article  6  I  find  that  the  comma  in  the  Spanish 
text  of  article  6  is  obviously  misplaced.  To  render  the  sense  of  the 
equivalent  English  text  the  comma  should  be  after  "  comercio  "  and 
there  should  be  none  after  "  refugio." 

This  change  is  immaterial  and  can  be  made  by  Mr.  Root  and  your- 
self initialing  it  on  the  margin  of  the  original  signed  treaty  in  this 
department.  Minister  Dawson  and  the  Colombian  minister  for 
foreign  affairs  can  do  the  same  with  the  treaty  in  Bogota. 

As  to  the  second  point,  Minister  Dawson  writes  that  the  minister 
for  foreign  affairs  of  Colombia  requests  that  he  be  authorized  to 
hold  himself  in  readiness  to  write  a  note  saying  that  the  use  con- 
ceded is  understood  to  be  only  as  that  right  of  refuge  recognized 
by  international  law  to  be  subject  to  the  usages  established  by  inter- 
national law  with  regard  to  right  of  refuge  and  not  as  involving  any 
breach  of  Colombian  sovereignty  over  her  ports. 

As  this  Government  understands  it,  article  G  merely  grants  the 
use  of  Colombian  ports  as  places  of  refuge  (in  the  sense  of  shelter) 
in  case  of  stress  or  need,  for  vessels  passing  through  or  bound  to 
pass  through  the  canal. 

That  such  use  is  merely  by  favor  and  without  prejudice  to  the 
sovereignty  of  Colombia  is  shown  by  the  rest  of  the  article  which 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL.  217 

(1)  subjects  the  granted  favor  to  Colombia's  duty  to  enforce  neutral- 
ity in  time  of  war;  and  (2)  grants  the  further  favor  of  exemption 
from  anchorage  or  tonnage  dues,  which,  without  such  concession, 
Colombia  would  collect  in  virtue  of  her  sovereignty. 

There  would  seem  to  be  no  possible  objection  to  Mr.  Dawson  ex- 
changing notes  with  the  Colombian  minister  for  foreign  affairs  in 
the  sense  suggested  in  his  telegram.  We  understand  that  all  the 
article  does  is  to  recognize  the  standing  doctrine  of  international  law 
concerning  the  friendly  shelter  of  vessels  in  stress  or  need,  jjIus  the 
concession  of  exemption  from  anchorage  or  tonnage  dues  in  such 
case. 

I  am  sending  a  telegram  to  Minister  Dawson  in  the  sense  of  this 
note,  and  I  trust  that  this  will  remove  the  impediment  which  has 
arisen. 

Be  pleased  to  accept,  sir,  the  renewed  assurances  of  my  distin- 
guished consideration. 

P.  C.  Knox. 

Secretai*y  Knox  to  Colombian  Minister. 

Serial  No.  82.]  Department  of  State. 

Washington,  March  22,  1909. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  note  of 
the  16th  instant,  in  which  you  advise  the  department  that  on  the 
14th  instant  you  received  a  telegram  from  your  Government  an- 
nouncing that  the  consideration  of  the  treaties  concluded  between  the 
United  States  and  Colombia  and  Colombia  and  Panama  would  be 
suspended  and  submitted  to  a  newly  elected  Congress  which  would 
be  called  immediately. 

You  express  your  opinion  that  the  treaties  will  be  approved  with- 
out modification  although  a  little  later  than  was  anticipated. 

I  have  the  honor  to  say  in  reply  that  the  department  appreciates 
the  cordial  sentiments  you  express,  and  sincerely  trusts  that  the 
situation  in  Colombia  will  not  cause  untoward  delay  in  the  ratifica- 
tion of  the  treaties,  thus  consummating  the  good  relationship  for 
which  this  Government  has  so  earnestly  labored  and  which  it  so 
eagerly  desires. 

Accept,  sir,  the  renewed  assurance  of  my  highest  consideration. 

P.  C.  Knox. 


Colombian  Minister  to  Secretary  Knox. 

No.  59.]  Legation  of  Colombia, 

Washington,  D.  C,  March  22.  1909. 

Sir  :  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  receipt  of  your  communi- 
cation dated  on  the  19th  instant. 

Your  letter  refers  to  our  conversation  regarding  the  contents  of 
Mr.  Dawson's  cable  to  your  excellency,  transmitting  the  requirements 
of  the  Colombian  minister  of  foreign  affairs  as  to  the  meaning  of 
Article  VI  of  the  treaty  between  Colombia  and  the  United  States 
signed  on  the  9th  of  January  last.  Said  requirements  are  twofold. 
On  the  one  part  a  matter  of  punctuation,  suppressing  the  comma 
after  the  word  "  refugio  *"  and  putting  it  after  the  word  "  comercio." 


218  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

On  the  other  part,  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  right  of  refuge  granted 
to  vessels  passing  through  or  bound  to  pass  through  the  canal.  The 
Colombian  minister  of  foreign  affairs  desiring  Mr.  Dawson  to  hold 
himself  in  readiness  to  write  a  note  to  him  saying  that  "  the  uste 
conceded  is  understood  to  be  only  as  that  right  of  refuge  recognized 
by  international  law  to  be  subject  to  the  usages  established  by  inter- 
national law  with  regard  to  right  of  refuge  and  not  as  involving  any 
breach  of  Colombian  sovereignty  over  her  ports." 

As  to  the  first  point,  your  excellency  accepts  the  suggestion  as  to 
punctuation,  mentioning  that  by  such  alteration  the  Spanish  text 
becomes  equivalent  to  the  English  text,  Furthermore,  you  mention 
that  by  initialing  the  text  by  Mr.  Root  and  myself  here  and  by  Mr. 
Dawson  and  the  minister  of  foreign  affairs  in  Bogota  all  formalities 
will  be  fulfilled.  I  beg,  in  consequence,  to  ask  your  kindly  advising 
me  when  may  I  call  on  you  for  the  purpose  of  initialing  the  treaty. 

As  to  the  second  point,  your  excellency  explains  the  concession 
granted,  as  understood  by  the  American  Government,  to  mean  the 
use  of  Colombian  ports  as  places  of  refuge  (in  the  sense  of  shelter) 
in  case  of  stress  or  need  for  vessels  passing  through  or  bound  to  pass 
through  the  canal,  and  your  excellency  further  adds — 

That  such  use  is  merely  by  favor  and  without  prejudice  to  the  sovereignty 
ot  Colombia  is  showu  by  the  rest  of  the  article,  which  (1)  subjects  the 
granted  favor  to  Colombia's  duty  to  enforce  neutrality  in  time  of  war,  and  (2) 
grants  the  further  favor  of  exemption  from  anchorage  or  tonnage  dues,  which, 
without  such  concession,  Colombia  would  collect  in  virtue  of  her  sovereignty. 

Your  excellency  further  adds  that — 

There  would  seem  to  be  no  possible  objection  to  Mr.  Dawson  exchanging 
notes  with  the  Colombian  minister  for  foreign  affairs  in  the  sense  suggested 
in  his  telegram.  All  the  article  does  (you  add)  is  to  recognize  the  standing 
doctrine  of  international  law  concerning  the  friendly  shelter  of  vessels  in  stress 
or  need,  plus  the  concession  of  exemption  from  anchorage  or  tonnage  dues  in 
such  case. 

Mention  is  made  in  your  note  of  your  sending  a  telegram  to  Min- 
ister Dawson  in  the  sense  of  your  note,  trusting  that  it  will  remove 
the  impediment  that  has  arisen. 

It  affords  me  much  pleasure,  Mr.  Secretary,  to  recognize  and  duly 
appreciate  your  readiness  in  disposing  of  the  matter  in  question 
and  the  fair  and  clear  manner  in  which  you  recognize  the  position, 
all  which  is  entirely  satisfactory  and  concurs  with  the  views  of  my 
Government  as  to  the  complete  maintenance  of  Colombia's  sover- 
eignty over  her  ports  not  being  in  any  manner  affected  by  the  con- 
cession as  to  right  of  refuge  granted  in  article  6  of  the  Colombia- 
United  States  treaty  of  9th  of  January. 

I  beg  to  present  to  your  excellency  the  expression  of  my  highest 
consideration. 

Enrique  Cortes. 

Minister  Dawson  to  Secretary  Knox. 

[Telegram.] 

American  Legation, 

Bogota,  March  23,  1909. 
March  23, 1  p.  m.    Your  telegram  of  March  19,  7  p.  m.    Colombian 
minister  for  foreign  affairs  says  that  he  believes  when  the  assembly 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  219 

approves  the  treaty  with  Panama  it  will  adopt  a  resolution  declaring 
that  "Region  of  Jurado"  does  not  extend  south  of  Jurado  River. 
He  says  such  a  resolution  would  enormously  facilitate  Government's 
labors  to  secure  approval.    Desires  your  opinion. 

Dawson. 


Colombian  Minister  to  Secretary  Knox. 

[Translation.] 

No.  62.]  Legation  of  Colombia, 

Washington,  D.  C,  31  arch  &£,  1909. 

Mr.  Secretary:  I  have  the  honor  to  forward  to  your  excellency 
a  copy  of  the  message  sent  by  the  President  of  the  Republic  of  Colom- 
bia, Gen.  Rafael  Reyes,  to  the  national  assembly  respecting  the 
treaties  concluded  with  the  United  States  of  America  and  the 
Republic  of  Panama,  from  which  document  your  excellency  will  see 
the  keen  interest  with  which  the  President  recommends  the  approval 
of  the  treaties  to  the  assembly. 

I  avail  myself  of  this  other  opportunity  to  renew  to  your  excellency 
the  expression  of  my  highest  consideration  and  to  subscribe  myself 
the  Secretary's  very  humble  obedient  servant. 

Enrique  Cortes. 

[Translation.] 

Honorable  members  of  the  National   Constituent  and  Legislative 

Assembly: 

The  minister  of  foreign  relations  will  lay  before  you  the  treaties 
signed  at  Washington  on  January  9  last  by  our  minister,  Senor  Don 
Enrique  Cortes  and  the  plenipotentiaries  of  the  United  States  and 
Panama,  the  Hon.  Elihu  Root  and  Senor  Don  Carlos  Constantin 
Arosemena. 

After  all,  this  important  and  delicate  negotiation  began  in  Wash- 
ington with  the  note  addressed  on  the  23d  of  December,  1903,1  to  his 
excellency  the  Hon.  John  Hay,  Secretary  of  State  of  the  United 
States,  by  the  mission  over  which  I  had  the  honor  to  preside  and  of 
which  Gen.  Don  Jorge  Holguin,  Don  Pedro  Nel  Ospina,  and  Don 
Lucas  Cabellero  were  members. 

In  concluding  these  treaties  our  legation  at  Washington  kept  within 
the  instruction  sent  it  by  the  Government  through  the  various 
ministers  in  charge  of  the  department  of  foreign  affairs  under  this 
administration,  and  justice  demands  recognition  of  the  patriotism 
and  intelligence  with  which  our  present  minister  to  the  United  States, 
Senor  Don  Enrique  Cortes,  has  conducted  and  carried  to  a  successful 
issue  those  negotiations. 

I  cherish  the  hope  that  the  Colombian  people  will,  when  it  knows 
them,  give  them  its  decidedly  favorable  verdict,  since  the  Govern- 
ment, in  concluding  them,  has  borne  in  mind  not  only  its  interests  and 
conveniences  but  also  its  mandates. 

Indeed,  the  board  of  commissioners  of  commerce,  agriculture,  and 
industry  of  the  departments  assembled  at  Bogota  in  July,  1906,  for 

1  Printed  in  S.  Doc.  95,  58th  Cong.,  2d  sess. 


220  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA   CANAL. 

the  treatment  of  economical  questions  alive  at  that  time  and  of  great 
importance,  whose  members  belonged  to  every  political  party  and 
are  furthermore  favorably  known  for  their  high  political  and  social 
standing  in  our  community,  unanimously  approved  at  its  session  of 
July  12,  1906,  the  following  motion: 

The  undersigned  commissioners  of  commerce,  agriculture,  and  industry,  of 
the  departments  of  Narino,  Cauca,  Antioquia,  Bolivar,  Atlantico,  and  Mag 
dalena,  which  are  the  departments  of  which  some  abut  on  the  Pacific  and  others 
on  the  Atlantic  Oce;in,  declare  to  the  Government  the  necessity  of  promptly  ad- 
justing, in  an  honorable  way  acceptable  to  Colombia,  the  questions  pending 
with  the  United  States  and  Panama  and  asks  that  this  motion,  which  has  been 
drawn  up  in  accord  with  the  minister  of  foreign  relations,  be  taken  up  by  the 
board. 

CELEDONIO   PlNERES. 

Oscar  A.  Noguera. 
Luciano  Herrera. 
Ricardo  Restrepo,  C. 
Leonardo  Tasc6n. 

Very  respectable  organs  of  the  press  have  welcomed  this  motion 
with  applause,  and  public  opinion,  in  possession  of  the  knowledge- 
needed  to  form  judgment  on  so  grave  a  subject,  was  not  long  in  bring- 
ing its  preponderating  influence  to  bear  in  the  same  sense,  as  is  evi- 
denced by  a  multitude  of  documents  circulated  in  printed  form,  which 
may  reasonably  be  considered  as  the  result  of  a  great  plebiscite. 

The  Government  considering,  in  a  way,  that  relations  with  foreign 
nations  are  part  of  domestic  policy,  conscious  of  its  duties  and  re- 
sponsibilities, and  at  the  same  time  interpreting  the  national  will  and 
looking  after  the  moral  and  material  interests  of  the  country  in  its 
charge,  never  ceased  in  the  last  five  years  to  labor  with  the  greatest 
zeal  for  an  honorable  and  suitable  settlement  of  so  delicate  a  question, 
and  believes  it  has  succeeded  in  this  with  the  treaties  that  are  sub- 
mitted to  your  enlightened  examination  and  are  approved  by  it  with- 
out any  restriction. 

R.  Reyes. 

Bogota,  February  22,  1909. 

Minister  Dawson  to  Secretary  of  State. 

[Telegram.] 

American  Legation. 

Bogota,  March  26,  1909. 
March  26,  3  p.  m.     Referring  to  your  telegram  of  March  19.  6  p.  m. 
Xotes  exchanged  and  the  comma  inserted  in  the  Spanish  text.     The 
assembly  will  continue  about  fortnight.     Elective  congress  will  assem- 
ble on  the  20th  July.     Country  is  quiet. 

Dawson. 


Minister  Dawson  to  Secretary  Knox. 

[Telegram.] 

American  Legation, 

Bogota,  March  27,  1909. 
March  -_!7.  6  p.  m.     Upon  the  recommendation  of  the  President  of 
Colombia,  the  assembly  to-day  referred  the  treaties  to  Congress  in 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA   CANAL.  221 

July.  This  sudden  change  due  to  .serious  threats  of  civil  war  and 
violence  against  the  members  of  the  assembly  by  the  treaty  opponents 
in  Bogota  and  Santander.  Congressional  elections  will  be  held  May 
30.  If  the  Government  win  and  peace  meantime  unbroken  Reyes 
hopes  for  approval  by  Congress. 

Dawson. 


Minister  Daioson  to  Secretary  of  State. 

[Edited.] 

No.  247.]  American  Legation. 

Bogota,  March  29,  1909. 

Sir  :  Referring  to  the  subject  of  my  No.  244,  of  March  8,  1909,1  and 
of  my  telegrams  of  March  10.  March  13,  March  14,  March  16,  March 
17,  March  18,  March  19,  March  23,  March  26,  and  March  27— the  dis- 
cussion of  the  ratification  by  Colombia  of  the  treaties  with  the  United 
States  and  with  Panama,  and  the  political  disturbances  incident 
thereto — T  have  the  honor  to  report  that  on  March  6  and  7  many 
clandestine  meetings  were  held  by  those  opposed  to  the  Reyes  gov- 
ernment and  to  ratification,  and  plans  matured  for  popular  demon- 
strations to  be  made  as  soon  as  the  expected  majority  report  of  the 
committee  should  be  presented. 

On  March  7  I  sought  a  personal  interview  with  the  President.  His 
words  were  confident,  but  his  manner  indicated  irresolution.  Pie  was 
plainly  nervous. 

On  March  8  the  majority  report  was  presented  and  published,  a 
copy  of  which  is  inclosed.  It  was  written  by  Antonio  Jose  Restrepo. 
Of  the  18  members  of  the  committee  14  favored  unconditional  ratifi- 
cation, 3  ratification  with  amendments,  and  1,  Francisco  de  P.  Mateus. 
ex-minister  for  foreign  affairs  and  many  times  plenipotentiary  for 
his  country  during  the  last  quarter  of  a  century,  opposed  the  treaty 
en  bloc.  He  read  a  minority  report,  a  copy  of  which  is  inclosed. 
This  minority  report  was  not  then  published,  but  the  purport  of  its 
inflammatory  assertions  that  the  treaties  were  deceitfully  drawn  so 
as  to  give  the  ports  of  Cartagena  and  Buenaventura  to  the  United 
States,  and  that  the  boundary  arbitration  provision  in  regard  to  the 
Jurado  region  meant  that  the  United  States  and  Panama  intended  to 
grab  all  the  territory  through  which  a  canal  up  the  Atrato  could 
reach  the  Pacific,  spread  like  wildfire,  and  his  bitter  denunciation  of 
the  attitude  of  the  United  States  when  Panama  declared  her  inde- 
pendence found  a  ready  echo  among  the  excitable  and  easily-preju- 
diced people  of  this  capital. 

That  evening,  March  8,  the  students  of  the  different  university 
schools,  with  the  knowledge  and  encouragement  of  many  of  their 
professors,  including  Dr.  Luis  Felipe  Calderon,  nephew  of  the 
President  and  brother  of  Climaco  Calderon.  who.  as  minister  of 
foreign  affairs  in  1905  and  1906,  began  the  negotiations  looking 
toward  these  very  treaties,  made  demonstrations  throughout  the  city. 
On  the  morning  of  March  9  the  streets  were  filled  with  excited 
crowds   of  people   and   bands   of   students   and.   young   men   crying 

1  Not  printed  ;  unimportant. 


222  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

"  Down  with  the  treaties."  "  Death  to  the  traitors  of  Panama," 
"  Death  to  the  United  States.'*  "  Viva  Mateus,"  "  Death  to  Restrepo," 
etc.  They  made  demonstrations  of  approval  at  the  house  of  Mateus 
and  Nicholas  Esgnerra.  and  of  disapproval  at  the  house  of  Antonio 
.lose  Restrepo. 

At  2  o'clock  in  the  afternoon,  while  I  was  writing  in  the  legation 
office,  about  40  students  came  to  the  legation  door  and,  upon  its 
being  opened  by  the  servant,  they  all  crowded  in.  Hearing  the  noise 
1  went  into  the  reception  room  and  sent  them  word  that  I  would 
see  them  there.  They  came  politely  enough  and  three  leaders,  repre- 
^entath'es  respectively  of  the  faculties  of  law,  medicine,  and  arts, 
made  speeches,  the  substance  of  which  wras  that  since  liberty  of  the 
press  did  not  exist  in  Colombia  under  Reyes's  administration  they 
had  no  other  means  of  letting  me  know  that  they  as  well  as  all  other 
honest  Colombians  were  opposed  to  the  treaties  because  Colombia's 
recognition  of  Panaman  independence  would  dishonor  and  disgrace 
her,  and  because  the  assembly,  which  had  them  under  consideration, 
was  an  unconstitutional  body  whose  members  had  been  appointed 
by  the  President  and  whose  servile  cooperation  was  assured  by  the 
granting  of  offices  and  favors.  I  briefly  called  their  attention  to 
the  fact  that,  it  would  be  improper  for  me,  as  a  foreign  representa- 
tive, to  discuss  with  private  individuals  the  merits  of  the  treaties; 
that  I  could  assure  them  that  the  Government  and  people  of  the 
United  States  were  animated  only  by  friendly  sentiments  toward  the 
Colombian  people  and  earnestly  desired  for  them  the  blessings  of 
prosperity  and  peace.  Happily,  the  spirit  of  personal  politeness 
and  decorum,  so  characteristic  of  Colombians,  prevented  their  saying 
anything  insulting  about  the  United  States  in  my  presence,  and 
they  retired  without  anything  disagreeable  happening.  I  took  no 
measures  to  communicate  the  incident  to  the  authorities,  but  shortly 
afterwards  heavy  detachments  of  police  were  placed  in  front  of  the 
legation  and  at  the  four  corners  of  the  block  in  which  it  is  situated. 
About  half  past  6  in  the  evening  a  great  crowd  assembled  at  one  of 
these  corners,  probably  with  the  intention  of  making  a  new  demon- 
stration, but  their  leaders  were  arrested.  Throughout  the  afternoon 
disorders  continued  in  various  parts  of  the  city,  and  there  were 
numerous  arrests. 

The  excitement,  disorders,  and  arrests  continued  on  March  9,  but 
so  far  as  I  could  see  then,  or  have  since  heard,  no  further  attempts 
were  made  to  demonstrate  against  this  legation.  The  rioters,  how- 
ever, were  with  difficulty  restrained  from  acts  of  violence  against 
members  of  the  assembly.  In  the  afternoon  there  w7as  an  acrimoni- 
ous debate  in  the  assembly  upon  a  motion  to  definitely  postpone  the 
consideration  of  the  treaties.  The  minister  for  foreign  affairs  was 
kind  enough  to  send  me  word  that  he  thought  it  w7ould  be  better  for 
me  not  to  be  present  since  I  might  hear  very  disagreeable  things 
about  my  country.  Such  things  were,  in  fact,  said,  as  I  have  been 
informed  by  members  of  the  diplomatic  corps  who  were  present,  who 
also  assured  me  that  nothing  was  said  reflecting  upon  the  official  or 
personal  conduct  of  Mr.  Barrett  or  myself.  For  the  most  part  the 
Government  deputies  sat  silent  except  Antonio  Jose  Restrepo,  who 
made  the  mistake  of  demanding  that  the  galleries  be  cleared  upon 
the  first  sign  of  disagreement  with  his  remarks.  This  incident 
greatly  excited  public  feeling  against  him. 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  223 

In  the  afternoon  the  President  offered  the  ministry  of  war  to 
Fernandez,  the  ruthless  Conservative  general  who,  when  in  charge 
in  1901  and  1902,  executed  so  many  Liberals.  He  declined,  and 
Perdomo,  another  Conservative  general,  of  much  the  same  type  and 
record,  was  named.  Perdomo's  appointment  was  received  with  a 
storm  of  indignation  and  was  withdrawn.  Reyes  issued  a  decree 
intrusting  the  maintenance  of  order  in  the  city  directly  to  the  minis- 
ter of  war,  and  the  first  popular  impression  was  that  he  was  going 
resolutely  to  suppress  the  disorders  and  pass  the  treaties.  However, 
it  has  since  transpired  that  a  threatening  telegram  had  just  been 
received  from  the  military  chiefs  in  Santander  (a  copy  is  inclosed) . 
Many  members  of  the  assembly  and  the  cabinet  were  becoming 
frightened,  and  others  thought  they  saw  an  opportunity  to  push 
Reyes  out  of  the  presidential  chair  and  themselves  get  into  control. 
Friends  of  Jorge  Holguin  almost  openly  advocated  his  elevation  to 
the  Presidency,  and  it  is  certain  that  he  strongly  advised  the  Presi- 
dent to  throw  the  treaties  overboard. 

The  student  demonstrations  continued  on  March  11,  and  the  lower 
classes  also  began  to  take  part,  and  while  arrests  were  numerous  the 
prisoners  were  in  all  cases  soon  released  and  no  really  vigorous 
measures  taken  to  restore  order.  On  that  day  still  another  new  cabi- 
net was  announced,  Jorge  Holguin  being  admitted  to  it  and  named 
Designado  or  successor  to  the  Presidency.  In  the  assembly  the  dis- 
cussions of  the  treaties  continued.  The  minister  for  foreign  affairs, 
Dr.  Urrutia,  made  a  strong  speech  in  their  favor,  a  copy  of  which  is 
inclosed,  but  the  majority  members  of  the  assembly  were  evidently 
weakening.  Just  before  the  session  closed  a  vote  was  forced  on  the 
first  and  second  articles  of  the  treaty  with  Panama,  and  they  were 
approved  by  43  to  3 :  Corral,  Q.uijano  Wallis,  and  Mateus. 

On  March  12  Gen.  Vazquez  Cobo  was  elected  to  the  presidency  of 
the  assembly  in  place  of  Holguin,  who  assumed  charge  of  the  min- 
istry of  the  treasury.  Telegrams  from  officeholders  all  over  the 
country  continued  to  pour  in  asking  that  the  treaties  be  ratified,  but 
since  it  was  well  known  that  these  telegrams  were  sent  in  response  to 
Government  solicitation  they  produced  little  effect.  In  the  absence  of 
freedom  of  the  press  or  any  other  organ  of  public  opinion,  it  was  im- 
possible to  tell  what  the  real  opinion  of  the  country  was,  and  it  was 
certain  that  the  populace  in  the  Provinces  was  even  less  informed  than 
that  in  Bogota  of  the  substance  and  real  intent  of  the  treaties. 
Rumors  of  disorders  at  various  points  were  current,  and  by  common 
consent  the  assembly  dropped  the  consideration  of  the  treaties  and 
waited  for  Reyes  to  take  decisive  action. 

On  the  morning  of  the  13th  President  Reyes  made  an  attempt  to 
reduce  the  students  to  a  better  frame  of  mind  by  inviting  some  of 
them  to  the  palace,  but  instead  of  discussing  the  treaties  the  speakers 
for  the  students  reproached  the  President  for  his  financial  policies, 
his  establishment  of  monopolies,  his  suppression  of  the  freedom  of 
the  press,  and  his  refusal  to  give  Colombia  an  elective  congress. 
Living  as  he  has  done  for  the  last  four  years,  in  an  atmosphere  of 
enforced  adulation,  not  accustomed  to  hear  criticisms  or  suggestions, 
the  President  took  this  in  very  bad  part. 

Shortly  thereafter  he  hastily  wrote  his  resignation  and  sent  it  to  the 
assembly.  The  news  astounded  everyone,  and  it  is  impossible  even 
yet  to  be  sure  what  motives  inspired  him. 


224  DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY  OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

Holguin  took  oath  as  Acting  President  and  named  a  new  cabinet, 
in  which  Nicolas  Esguerra,  now  the  most  prominent  Liberal  in  the 
country,  was  included.  Carlos  Cuervo  Marquez  became  minister  of 
war.  Holquin  at  once  sent  a  message  to  the  assembly  advising  it  to 
refrain  from  further  consideration  of  the  treaties.  Urrutia  resigned 
as  minister  for  foreign  affairs.  Esguerra  and  another  recently  ap- 
pointed Liberal  refused  to  accept.  Holquin  and  Cuervo  Marquez 
ordered  the  police  not  to  interfere  with  popular  demonstrations,  and 
anarch}'  broke  loose.  The  long-smoldering  hatred  of  Reyes  had  free 
rein;  crowds  paraded  the  streets  crying  "  Abajo  el  tirano,"  "  Mueran 
los  vendidos  " ;  street-corner  orators  reviled  Reyes  as  a  grafter ;  the 
crowds  stoned  the  offices  of  the  Correo  Nacional  and  Nuevo  Tiempo, 
the  Government  subsidized  newspapers,  and  even  demonstrated 
against  the  apostolic  delegate  and  the  archbishop.  A  howling  mob 
besieged  the  assembly  hall  all  afternoon,  and  the  members  waited  un- 
til dark  and  slipped  out  one  by  one.  Restrepo  was  run  off  the  streets 
and  his  house  stoned.  About  7  o'clock  Dr.  Urrutia  called  on  me  in  a 
very  excited  condition  to  say  that  Holguin  would  in  fact  have  the 
assembly  take  up  the  treaties  again  in  a  few  days  and  that  he  himself 
had  therefore  continued  to  remain  in  office.  About  the  same  time 
Reyes  telephoned  me  privately  to  come  over  to  the  palace  at  S  o'clock 
for  consultation.  This  fact  is  my  principal  reason  for  suspecting  that 
his  resignation  had  always  a  string  to  it.  Half  an  hour  afterwards 
came  another  message  that  my  call  would  not  be  necessary.  About  9 
o'clock  a  mob  wrecked  Vazquez  Cobo's  house. 

Mrs.  Vazquez  was  badly  frightened,  and  her  husband  rushed  to 
the  palace  and  to  their  faces  furiously  denounced  Reyes,  Holguin. 
and  Cuervo  Marquez  as  cowards  and  traitors  to  their  friends.  He 
threatened  to  go  himself  to  the  barracks  and  put  himself  in  command 
of  the  troops.  Reyes  asked  him  if  he  would  accept  the  ministry  of 
war.  and  upon  his  answering  in  the  affirmative,  he  assumed  the 
presidency  and  dismissed  Cuervo  Marquez.  In  the  meantime  a  large 
and  excited  public  meeting  of  persons  prominent  socially  and  politi- 
cally was  being  held  at  the  jockey  club  where  violent  diatribes  against 
Reyes  were  uttered.  Olaya  Herrera.  who  had  been  very  active  dur- 
ing the  week,  and  who  is  believed  to  have  been  in  communication 
with  revolutionary  plotters  in  Panama,  Tumaco,  and  elsewhere,  pro- 
posed the  formation  of  a  supreme  junta  with  Esguerra  at  its  head, 
but  these  proceedings  were  suddenly  interrupted  about  midnight 
by  the  arrival  of  troops  who  arrested  nearly  everyone  present  and 
carried  them  off  to  prison.  Until  a  late  hour  the  police  scoured  the 
streets  dispersing  and  arresting  the  groups  of  students  and  workmen, 
and  several  people  were  killed  and  injured. 

Next  morning,  March  14,  Bogota  woke  to  find  Reyes  in  the  Presi- 
dency, a  state  of  siege  declared,  machine  guns  placed  commanding 
the  central  plaza,  the  police  and  troops  armed  with  Mausers,  and 
Vazquez  Cobo,  Fernandez,  and  Perdomo,  the  three  most  dreaded 
generals  in  the  country,  in  command.  Olaya  Herrera  and  his  lieu- 
tenant, Escobar,  were  sentenced  by  court-martial  to  five  years  in  the 
Cartagena  dungeons:  Cliinaco  Calderon  was  arrested.  The  malcon- 
tents were  terrorized,  and  the  city  became  as  quiet  as  a  graveyard. 

Monday  morning.  March  15,  I  called  on  Vazquez  Cobo.  He  told 
me  the  treaties  would  be  pushed  through  at  once  if  Panama  would 
consent  to  define  the  Jurado  region.     In  the  afternoon  he  resigned 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  225 

as  minister  of  war  to  reassume  the  presidency  of  the  assembly,  and 
I  had  bright  hopes  of  early  action.  But  when  I  went  to  see  the 
minister  for  foreign  affairs,  to  my  great  disappointment  I  found  that 
Reyes  himself  was  not  disposed  to  take  advantage  of  the  opportunity 
and  assume  the  responsibility.  Speaking  officially,  the  minister  said 
he  regretted  to  have  to  admit  that  an  unexpectedly  strong  popular 
opposition  to  the  treaties  had  developed,  complicated  with  much 
dissatisfaction  at  the  fiscal  policies  of  the  Government,  its  centraliz- 
ing tendencies,  its  interference  with  the  liberty  of  the  press,  and  its 
failure  to  provide  an  elective  congress.  The  opponents  of  the  Gov- 
ernment had  succeeded  in  arousing  the  latent  popular  sentiment  of 
indignation  that  had  never  ceased  to  exist  against  the  Panaman 
leaders  who  took  part  in  the  declaration  of  independence  and  against 
the  United  States  for  its  alleged  complicity  with  their  acts.  Oppo- 
sition members  of  the  assembly  had  succeeded  in  further  exacerbating 
public  sentiment  by  insisting  that  certain  articles  of  the  treaties  were 
susceptible  of  a  construction  that  would  be  ruinous  to  Colombia. 
They  were  laying  special  emphasis  on  Article  VI  of  the  treaty  with 
the  United  States  and  the  boundary  arbitration  provision  of  the 
treaty  with  Panama. 

The  department  will  get  an  idea  of  the  general  nature  of  these  mis- 
representations and  charges  from  the  following  paragraphs  of  the 
minority  report,  written  and  signed  by  F.  de  P.  Mateus,  ex-minister 
for  foreign  affairs,  and  who  has  served  as  Colombia's  plenipotentiary 
at  many  posts  during  the  last  25  years : 

By  article  6  of  the  treaty  Colombia  concedes  to  tlie  United  States  the  use  of 
all  the  ports  of  the  Republic  open  to  commerce  as  places  of  refuge  for  any 
vessels  employed  in  the  canal  enterprise  and  for  all  vessels  in  distress  passing 
or  bound  to  pass  through  the  canal  and  seeking  shelter  or  anchorage  in  said 
ports,  being  exempt  from  all  payments  for  anchorage  or  tonnage  dues. 

Calvo  defines  "  refuge  "  :  "  The  protection  against  an  imminent  peril,  whether 
of  a  man  being  pursued  or  a  ship  menaced  by  a  tempest."  Refuge  being  a  nat- 
ural right,  an  net  of  humanity,  in  respect  to  ships  in  peril  recognized  by  all  na- 
tions, there  is  no  reason  to  refer  to  it  in  the  treaties.  The  real  intention  was 
to  create  a  servitude  of  use  in  our  ports  in  favor  of  the  United  States,  calling 
it  refuge  in  order  to  secure  its  easy  approval.  Nevertheless,  the  article  makes 
a  clear  distinction  between  the  use  conceded  to  any  ships  employed  in  the  canal 
enterprise,  including  warships  and  ships  in  distress  which  are  really  in  need  of 
refuge. 

Calvo  says  in  his  Dictionary  of  International  Law  that  "  Use  is  the  right  of 
using,  personally,  something  whose  property  belongs  to  another  and  to  partici- 
pate in  its  products.  This  right  includes  things  movable  as  well  as  immovable." 
The  deduction  from  this  doctrine  is  that  as  long  as  the  use  of  our  ports  is  con- 
ceded to  the  United  States  the  latter  Nation  may  construct  in  them  docks  to 
shelter  their  ships  anil  may  establish  coaling  stations  on  their  shores. 

Whatever  may  be  the  reasons  adduced  to  prove  the  innocence  of  this  clause 
of  the  treaty,  which  I  do  not  doubt  was  loyally  and  honorably  accepted  by  the 
Colombian  minister,  I  entertain  the  profound  conviction  that  the  concession  of 
the  use  of  our  ports  to  the  United  States  signifies  the  loss  of  the  independence 
of  Colombia.  It  is  not  long  since  that  the  foreign  press  discussed  the  intention 
of  the  Government  of  the  United  States  to  establish  a  naval  station  at  Carta- 
gena and  another  at  Buenaventura,  in  view  of  ulterior  events,  as  strategical 
points  for  the  defense  of  the  canal. 

Recently  an  American  squadron  arrived  at  Colon,  and  it  is  not  impossible,  once 
the  treaties  are  ratified,  that  that  squadron  will  occupy  Cartagena  and  a  like 
measure  be  shortly  adopted  in  respect  to  the  port  of  Buenaventura  on  the 
Pacific. 

The  minister  said  that  in  the  speeches  in  the  assembly  reference 
has  also  been  made  to  the  fact  that  in  the  Spanish  text  of  article  6 
42112— S.  Doc.  474,  63-2 15 


226  DIPLOMATIC    HISTOEY    OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

a  comma  was  placed  after  the  word  "  refugio  *'  instead  of  after  the 
word  "  comercio." 

The  minister  added  that  he  and  the  rest  of  the  Colombian  execu- 
tive understood  perfectly  well  that  the  article  did  nothing  more 
than  clearly  confirm  an  already  existing  practice  and  right  under 
international  law,  except  that  it  put  Colombia  under  the  obligation 
of  not  charging  anchorage  and  tonnage  dues.  However,  many  mem- 
bers of  the  assembly  and  the  public  in  general  insisted  upon  some 
additional  guarantee  on  the  subject.  During  the  past  week  he  had 
been  pressed  to  the  wall  in  regard  to  this  matter,  and  he  would 
greatly  appreciate  anything  I  could  do  to  help  him  out. 

I  answered  that  personally  I  had  no  doubt  that  his  conception  of 
the  meaning  of  the  article  in  question  was  correct,  but  could  make  no 
official  statement  without  authority  from  the  Department  of  State. 
I  suggested  that  he  telegraph  Mr.  Cortes,  instructing  him  to  secure 
an  exchange  of  reassuring  notes  between  the  Secretary  of  State  and 
himself.  The  minister  said  he  would,  of  course,  do  that  as  a  last 
resort  if  I  refused  to  telegraph,  but  he  urgently  desired  that  such 
notes,  if  agreed  upon,  be  signed  here,  so  that  they  could  be  shown 
to  the  members  of  the  Assembly.  In  this  connection  he  spoke  of 
the  unfortunate  fact,  well  known  to  me  from  my  personal  observation 
during  the  last  month,  that  the  profoundest  distrust  and  most  carping 
spirit  prevails. 

After  careful  reflection.  I  decided  to  comply  with  his  request  and 
told  him  to  write  me  a  note,  which  reached  me  the  following  day.  I 
inclose  a  copy  and  translation  thereof. 

Therefore  I  telegraphed  you,  under  date  of  March  17,  that  the 
opponents  of  the  treaty  were  laying  stress  on  the  alleged  ambiguity  of 
article  6,  and  that  the  minister  for  foreign  affairs  requested  that 
I  be  authorized  to  write  a  note  saying  that  the  use  of  her  ports  con- 
ceded by  Colombia  in  said  article  was  only  that  right  of  refuge 
which  is  recognized  by  international  law,  subject  to  the  usages  estab- 
lished by  international  law  in  regard  to  right  of  refuge,  and  not  as 
involving  any  breach  of  Colombian  sovereignty. 

In  regard  to  the  provision  of  the  Panama  treaty  for  arbitration  as 
to  the  "  region  of  Jurado,"  the  minority  report  had  said : 

The  limits  of  this  region  not  being  determined,  the  arbiters  can  put  them  as 
far  as  Cupiea  Bay  on  the  Pacific,  which  is  the  southern  end  of  the  Atrato 
Canal,  and  thus  destroy  this  interoceanic  route  which,  in  the  future,  might 
be  a  source  of  profit  to  Colombia. 

In  making  up  the  arbitral  tribunal,  the  Republic  is  to  name  one  arbiter  and 
Panama  another,  and  if  these  two  can  not  agree  on  the  third — and  it  is  clear 
that  such  an  agreement  can  never  be  reached — he  will  be  named  by  the 
President  of  Cuba,  or — what  is  the  same  thing — by  the  Government  of  the 
United  States.  Therefore  the  tribunal  is  useless,  because  Colombia  wiU  be 
defenseless  and  the  region  of  Jurado  ipso  facto  be  given  to  Panama. 

How  widespread  is  this  unjust  and  absurd  notion  can  be  judged 
from  the  inclosed  copy  of  a  letter  from  the  American  consular  agent 
in  Bucaramanga   (Santander)  to  Consul  General  White. 

The  minister  said  on  March  15th  that  Dr.  Cortes  had  erred  in  not 
accepting  the  Panama  representative's  suggestion  that  the  arbitra- 
tion extend  to  the  "  Corregimiento  de  Jurado."  as  defined  in  Senor 
Sosa's  pamphlet,  viz,  to  Punta  de  Marzo,  and  insisting  on  inserting 
"  region  de  Jurado."  Though  the  intention  had  been  to  confine  the 
arbitration  to  a  smaller  terrifon^.  probably  only  as  far  south  as  the 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTOEY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  227 

village  or  river  of  Jurado,  the  indefiniteriess  of  the  phrasing  had 
given  the  treaty  opponents  an  opportunity  to  alarm  the  public. 
He  said  Dr.  Cortes  was  already  in  negotiations  with  Senor  Arosemena, 
with  good  prospects  of  coming  to  an  exchange  of  notes  geographi- 
cally defining  the  meaning  of  the  term  "  region  de  Jurado."  but  that 
he  would  be  grateful  if  I  would  inform  you  of  the  vital  importance 
of  the  matter  so  far  as  this  end  was  concerned.  Accordingly,  in  my 
telegrams  of  March  17  (received  by  you  the  18th)  and  of  March  23, 
I  did  so.  On  March  27  the  minister  showed  me  a  note  received  from 
the  Colombian  agent  in  Panama,  saying  that  the  Isthmian  Govern- 
ment had  determined  to  authorize  Senor  Arosemena  to  exchange 
notes  with  Dr.  Cortes.  No  confirmation  of  this  has  yet  come  from 
Washington  to  Bogota. 

From  about  the  12th  it  had  seemed  to  me  that  the  popular  senti- 
ment against  the  treaties  was  being  swallowed  up  in  the  feeling 
against  the  Government  and  considerations  of  internal  politics  and 
personal  ambition.  Therefore  I  was  especially  anxious  to  remove 
the  objections  as  to  Article  VI  and  the  Jurado  clause  so  as  to  soften 
the  blow  in  case  Reyes  should  make  up  his  mind  to  act  vigorously. 

On  March  16  I  saw  the  minister  for  foreign  affairs  and  showed 
him  your  telegram  of  March  15,  in  which  you  say  that  it  would  be  de- 
plorable if  the  outbreak  should  disturb  the  ratification  of  the  treaties, 
and  it  was  brought  at  once  to  President  Reyes's  personal  attention. 
The  same  morning  there  was  a  te  deum  in  the  cathedral  to  offer 
thanks  for  the  reestablishment  of  order.  Telegrams  were  sent  all 
over  the  country  describing  the  disorders  and  arousing  the  church 
people  to  indignation  on  account  of  the  alleged  attacks  on  the  arch- 
bishop. Three  thousand  recruits  hurriedly  gathered  at  Cundina- 
marca  and  Boyaca  arrived  this  day.  The  diplomatic  corps  was 
invited  to  a  presidential  reception  in  connection  with  a  great  official 
demonstration  organized  to  show  the  Government's  strength,  but 
before  going  met  to  discuss  what  attitude  should  be  taken.  Some  of 
the  members  showed  great  reluctance  at  being  used  by  President 
Reyes,  protested  that  it  was  dangerous  and  unwise  to  be  put  in  the 
attitude  of  appearing  to  lend  official  sanction  to  his  actions,  and  some 
of  them  even  went  so  far  as  to  suggest  that  the  corps  as  a  body  advise 
him  either  to  adopt  a  more  liberal  popular  policy  or  to  resign,  but 
wiser  counsels  prevailed,  and  we  all  went  to  the  reception.  The 
President  told  us  that  he  had  consented  to  remain  in  power,  that  the 
assembly  would  not  accept  his  resignation,  and  asked  us  to  telegraph 
our  Governments  that  order  had  been  reestablished.  Thereupon  I 
sent  you  my  telegram,  dated  March  16,  at  5  p.  m.,  and  also  tele- 
graphed to  substantially  the  same  effect  to  all  our  consuls  in 
Colombia. 

On  March  17  the  assembly  formally  declined  to  accept  Presi- 
dent Reyes's  resignation,  and  in  the  afternoon  I  saw  him  and  showed 
him  your  telegram  of  March  17  (6  p.  m.).  He  again  reassured  me 
that  the  treaties  would  be  pushed  through  just  as  soon  as  the  country 
had  quieted  down  a  little  more,  thanked  us  for  our  kind  efforts  in 
regard  to  Article  VI  and  the  Jurado  clause,  and  told  me  he  would 
be  grateful  if  we  would  intervene  with  the  Panama  Government 
toward  preventing  the  exportation  of  arms  intended  for  revolution- 
ary purposes  in  Colombia  and  Venezuela  from  Panama. 


228  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

The  same  day  Antonio  Jose  Restrepo  resigned  from  the  assembly 
and  the  President  issued  a  message  congratulating  the  country  on  the 
reestablishment  of  peace.     A  copy  is  inclosed. 

On  March  19  the  city  seemed  to  have  returned  to  its  normal  con- 
dition ;  Climaco  Calderon  and  most  of  the  other  prominent  prisoners, 
except  Olaya  Herrera,  had  been  released ;  the  state  of  siege  was  raised 
and  the  guards  withdrawn  from  around  this  legation. 

On  March  20  the  President  issued  a  message  promising  fiscal  re- 
forms and  the  immediate  calling  of  elections  for  Congress.  No  move 
was  made,  however,  by  the  assembly  to  take  up  the  treaties  and  great 
anxiety  continued  to  be  felt  in  regard  to  the  general  political  situation. 

On  March  22  a  new  cabinet  was  named,  Holguin  being  changed  to 
the  ministry  of  war,  and  retained  as  designado,  and  the  Liberals  who 
had  refused  to  accept  being  replaced. 

On  March  23  Dr.  Urrutia  and  I  completed  our  arrangements  in 
regard  to  the  exchange  of  notes  about  Article  VI.  I  had  received 
your  telegraphic  instruction  of  March  20  authorizing  me  to  write 
the  Colombian  minister  in  the  sense  suggested,  viz,  that  our  under- 
standing is  that  the  first  part  of  Article  VI  does  nothing  more  than 
recognize  the  long-standing  doctrine  of  international  law  concerning 
the  friendly  shelter  of  vessels  in  stress  or  need,  plus  a  waiver  of  port 
dues,  and  accordingly  sent  him  the  note,  of  which  I  inclose  a  copy. 
The  preparation  of  this  note  and  the  insertion  of  the  initialed  comma 
in  the  Spanish  text  was  a  little  delayed  because  of  the  necessity  of 
Dr.  Urrutia's  attendance  at  the  assembly  and  because  he  at  first 
thought  there  ought  to  be  a  comma  in  the  English  text.  It  was  not 
until  the  afternoon  of  the  25th  that  we  formally  met  and  inserted  the 
comma,  although  the  memorandum  or  protocol  (of  which  the  orig- 
inal is  inclosed  with  translation)  setting  forth  our  action  was,  at  his 
request,  dated  the  23d. 

On  the  25th  Dr.  Urrutia  told  me  that  the  President  was  about 
ready  to  push  the  treaties  through  the  assembly,  and  that  it  would 
be  done  without  warning  or  further  debate.  On  the  morning  of  the 
26th  the  assembly  members  on  whom  the  President  could  rely  were 
called  to  the  palace  in  groups  of  six  or  eight,  and  they  signed  a  docu- 
ment agreeing  to  complete  ratification  on  the  Monday  following, 
namely,  March  29.  The  news  of  such  action  spread  rapidly  to  the 
public,  and  the  opponents  at  once  began  quietly,  but  determinedly,  to 
organize.  Their  efforts  were  the  more  formidable  because  the  trades- 
unions  were  very  bitter  over  the  killing  by  the  police  of  some  work- 
men during  the  riots,  and  the  students  cooperated  in  a  body.  That 
night  and  the  next  morning  many  members  of  the  assembly  received 
warning  that  they  would  surely  be  assassinated  if  they  obeyed  Reyes. 
From  the  confessionals  the  archbishop,  who  is  in  favor  of  the  treaties 
and  the  Reyes  Government,  received  proofs  which  satisfied  him  that 
Bogota  would  be  in  revolt  within  24  hours.  He  weakened  and  wrote 
a  letter  to  the  President  most  earnestly  advising  him.  in  the  interest 
of  peace,  to  withdraw  the  treaties  and  call  Congress  immediately. 
Whether  or  not  this  letter  decided  the  President  I  have  no  means  of 
ascertaining  certainly,  but  the  fact  is  that  on  the  morning  of  the  27th 
President  Reyes  announced  that  he  had  again  changed  his  mind  and 
that  he  would  recommend  that  the  assembly  cease  considering  the 
treaties,  and  that  he  would  rail  Congress  for  July  20.     I  spent  the 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  229 

day  with  my  friends  in  the  assembly  and  the  Government  endeavor- 
ing to  prevent  such  action,  but  my  efforts  were  fruitless.  Inclosed 
37ou  will  find  copies  of  the  resolution  in  regard  to  the  treaties  adopted 
by  the  assembly. 

Throughout  the  past  month  I  have  been  in  personal  or  indirect 
communication  with  the  leaders  of  all  parties.  None  of  the  leaders 
are,  in  their  hearts,  opposed  to  the  treaties,  but  few  of  them  are  will- 
ing to  take  any  responsibility  toward  actively  helping  to  their  adoption. 
Among  the  average  politicians  there  exists,  I  am  sorry  to  say,  a  con- 
siderable sentiment  in  favor  of  delay  and  of  making  as  many  objec- 
tions as  possible,  believing  that  such  tactics  Avill  result  in  obtaining 
material  advantages  for  Colombia  and  for  themselves. 

I  inclose  a  number  of  discussions  by  various  prominent  men  which 
have  appeared  in  the  newspapers.  They  are  mostly  favorable  to  the 
treaties,  but  it  must  be  remembered  that  in  this  country,  so  long  ac- 
customed to  suppression  of  the  liberty  of  the  press,  adverse  opinions 
are  more  likely  to  be  ventilated  in  conversation  than  in  the  columns 
of  the  newspapers.  The  three  Colombians  whose  opinions  would, 
perhaps,  carry  most  weight  with  the  reflecting  public  are  Ch'maco  Cal- 
deron,  Rafael  Uribe  Uribe.  and  Francisco  de  P.  Borda.  All  three  have 
so  far  refused  to  write  anything  for  the  press.  The  two  former  are, 
in  fact,  favorable  and  the  last  is  adverse. 

I  can  offer  no  prediction  as  to  Congress's  final  action.  If  the 
treaties  become  the  principal  issue  in  the  elections,  the  chances  are 
against  their  ratification.  If  internal  politics,  decentralization,  lib- 
erty of  the  press,  and  fiscal  and  administrative  reforms  preoccupy 
the  unthinking  and  prejudiced  public,  the  treaties  may  have  a  chance. 

Congress  meets  July  20.  but  the  treaties  will  not  be  taken  up  until 
well  on  in  August.  In  the  meantime  it  is  better  that  this  legation 
be  left  in  charge  of  the  secretary.  The  pressure  upon  me  to  become, 
as  it  were,  a  center  of  intrigue— to  take  part  in  the  inner  workings  of 
Colombian  party  politics — has  been  strong  and  will  become  stronger 
as  the  parties  line  up  for  the  elections.  I  am  confident  I  would  con- 
tinue to  be  prudent,  but  I  fear  misapprehensions  and  misrepresenta- 
tions as  to  my  attitude. 

Many  of  the  inclosures  herewith  are  not  accompanied  by  trans- 
lations. Their  bulk  is  so  great  that  there  has  not  been  time,  with  the 
force  at  our  disposal,  to  make  them.  I  think,  however,  they  will  re- 
pay a  careful  reading  in  the  department  when  the  question  of  our 
further  attitude  in  regard  to  the  treaties  with  Colombia  is  taken  up. 
I  have  the  honor  to  be.  sir.  your  obedient  servant. 

T.  C.  Dawson. 

Inclosures : x 

1.  Majority  report. 

la.  Editorial  (Correo  Nacional.  Mar.  9). 

2.  Minority  report  ("X.  Y.  Z.."  Mar.  26). 

2a.  Debate  in  assembly  (Anales  de  la  Asamblea.  No.  11). 

2b.  Debate  in  assembly  (Correo  Nacional,  Mar.  11). 

2c.  Speech  of  Deputy  Enrique  Perez  (Nuevo  Tiempo.  26th). 

3.  Telegram  from  Cucuta.  March  10. 
3a.  Debate  in  assembly   (Anales). 

3b.  Debate  in  assembly  (Correo  Nacional,  Mar.  12). 

1  Inclosures  not   translated. 


230  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

3c.  Speech  of  Deputy  Montana  (Nuevo  Tiempo). 

4.  Speech  of  Dr.  Urrutia  (Anales). 

4a.  Telegram  from  Cali,  March  3  (Correo  Nacional). 
4b.  Speech  of  Deputy  Corral  (Anales,  No.  12). 
4c.  Message  of  March  13  from  President  Reyes  (Correo  Nacional). 
4d.  Message  of  March  13  from  Acting  President  Holguin  (Correo 
Nacional). 

4e.  Account  of  riots  (Concurso  Nacional). 

4f.  Decrees  Nos.  290  and  293  of  March  14  (Correo  Nacional). 

5.  Note  from  Dr.  Urrutia  to  Mr.  Dawson,  March  15. 

6.  Translation  thereof. 

7.  Copy  of  part  of  letter  from  Consular  Agent  Volkman  (Bucara- 
manga)  to  Consul  General  White,  February  28. 

7a.  Presidential  circular  telegrams  of  March  14  and  15  from  Presi- 
dent to  military  authorities,  etc.,  in  Provinces. 

8.  Presidential  message  to  assembly  of  March  20. 

9.  Mr.  Dawson's  note  to  Dr.  Urrutia,  March  23. 

10.  Memorandum  insertion  of  comma  in  Spanish  text  of  treaty. 

11.  Translation  thereof. 

12.  Report  of  special  committee  on  treaties,  March  27. 

13.  Article  by  "  M.  T.,"  Nuevo  Tiempo. 

14.  Article  by  Carlos  Vallarino  y  Miro,  Nuevo  Tiempo. 

15.  Article  by  Juan  de  J.  Bernal,  Nuevo  Tiempo. 

16.  Article   by   Max   Grillo,   "  Opinion   acerca    de    los   tratados," 
Nuevo  Tiempo. 

17.  Letter  from  J.  N.  Valderrama,  Nuevo  Tiempo. 

18.  Letter  from  P.  A.  Herran,  Nuevo  Tiempo. 

19.  Interview  with  Gen.  Thomas  Quintero,  Nuevo  Tiempo. 


The  Acting  Secretary  to  Minister  Dawson. 

No.  84.]  Washington,  April  6,  1909. 

Sir  :  I  have  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  No.  241,  of  Febru- 
ary 26  last,  in  which  you  forward  a  copy  of  the  message  of  the  Presi- 
dent of  Colombia,  transmitting  to  Congress  the  treaties  between  the 
United  States  and  Colombia  and  between  Colombia  and  Panama, 
together  with  the  exposition  of  the  treaties  by  the  Colombian  min- 
ister of  foreign  affairs. 

Thanking  you  for  the  document,  I  desire  that  you  may,  in  the 
course  of  informal  conversation  with  the  minister,  express  your  per- 
sonal  gratification    for   the    kindly   sentiments   toward   the   United 
States  expressed  in  Mr.  Urrutia's  exposition. 
I  am,  sir.  your  obedient  servant, 

Huntington  Wilson, 

Acting  Secretary. 

Secretary  Knox  to  Minister  Dawson. 

[Confidential.] 

Serial  No.  87.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  April  19,  1909. 
Sir:  Referring  to  your  telegrams  of  the  23d  and  27th  ultimo,  al- 
ready confirmed.  1  inclose  for  your  confidential  information  copies 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  231 

of  the  notes  exchanged  between  the  Colombian  and  Panaman  min- 
isters at  this  capital  concerning  an  alleged  declaration  by  the  Pana- 
man minister  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  words  "  region  de  Jurado." 

These  copies  were  confidentially  given  to  the  department  by  the 
Colombian  Legation. 

It  is  unnecessary  to  reiterate  the  ardent  hope  of  this  Government 
that  these  treaties  may  be  ratified  at  the  earliest  practicable  moment. 

For  your  own  information  I  will  add  that  the  department  does 
not  at  the  present  moment  feel  called  upon  to  express  any  formal 
opinion  as  to  the  interpretation  of  the  boundary  situation  between 
Colombia  and  Panama. 

T  am,  sir.  your  obedient  servant. 

P.  C.  Knox. 

Inclosures: 

From  Colombian  minister  to  Panaman  minister,  March  1,  1909. 

From  the  Panaman  minister  to  Colombian  minister,  March  6, 1909. 


Legacion  de  Colombia, 

Washington,  March  1,  1909. 
His  excellency  Don  C.  C.  Arosemena, 

Envoy  Extraordinary  and  Minister  Plenipotentiary 

of  the  Republic  of  Panama. 
My  Dear  Mra  Minister  :  It  is  necessary  for  me  to  write  to  Bogota 
preparing  the  road  for  the  arbitration  we  have  agreed  upon,  and  it 
should  be  most  gratifying  to  me  if  Y.  E.  would  do  me  the  favor  to 
ratify  in  writing  the  words  that  you  employed  referring  to  this  at 
the  time  we  were  finishing  the  discussion  on  the  treaty.  I  refer  to 
our  having  agreed  to  avoid  any  description  of  the  territory  subject 
of  dispute,  which  might  come  to  darken  the  deliberations  of  the 
tribunal,  and  having  asked  what  Y.  E.  understood  by  the  words 
"region  de  Jurado."  you  answered  in  these  or  similar  words:  "As 
minister  of  Panama,  and  a  signatory  to  this  treaty,  I  must  state  that 
in  my  opinion  what  is  called  '  region  de  Jurado '  is  bounded  toward 
the  east,  to  wit,  toward  Colombian  territory,  by  the  course  of  the 
River  Jurado."  And  that  in  consequence  we  did  agree  to  accept  in 
the  writing  of  the  treaty  the  words  "  region  de  Jurado." 

I  beg  Y.  E.  to  excuse  my  troubling  you  and  assuring  Y.  E.  of  my 
sincere  thanks  for  a  gratifying  reply.     I,  etc., 

Enrique  Cortes. 

No.  3.]  Legacion  de  Panama, 

Washington,  March  6,  1909. 

My  Dear  Mr.  Minister  and  Esteemed  Colleague  :  I  have  the  honor 
to  acknowledge  receipt  of  your  excellency's  kind  note  of  the  1st 
instant,  requesting  the  ratification  of  certain  declarations  which  I 
made  by  word  to  your  excellency  before  the  signature  of  the  treaties 
between  our  respective  countries  respecting  my  opinion  as  to  what 
is  mentioned  in  the  treaty  as  the  Jurado  region.  (La  region  de 
Jurado.) 

Your  excellency  will  remember  that  on  giving  my  opinion  as  to 
what  I  considered  was  comprised  within  "  la  region  de  Jurado,"  I 


232  DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

pointed  out  to  your  excellency  thai  I  was  ready  to  reiterate  my  words 
in  case  that  if  at  the  time  of  submitting  the  question  to  arbitration 
any  dispute  should  arise  between  the  arbitrators  touching  what  is 
called  in  the  treaty  as  "  la  region  de  Jurado."  I  am  ready  to  fulfill 
this  declaration  when  the  circumstances  require  it;  I  truly  regret 
not  to  do  it  at  this  moment,  as  I  consider  it  premature  since  no 
question  has  yet  been  risen  about  the  interpretation  of  the  words 
"  la  region  de  Jurado." 

The  facts  that  the  treaties  between  Colombia  and  Panama,  the 
United  States  and  Panama,  and  Colombia  and  the  United  States 
have  not  yet  been  ratified  by  all  the  countries,  and  that  the  ratifica- 
tions have  not  been  exchanged  yet,  has  also  influenced  upon  my  mind 
not  to  accede  to  your  excellency's  wishes. 
Accept,  sir,  etc., 

C.  C.  Arosemena. 

His  excellencv  Senor  D.  Enrique  Cortes,  Etc. 


Acting  Secretary  to  Charge  Hibbcn. 

Serial  No.  89.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  May  4, 1909. 
Paxton  Hibben,  Esq.. 

American  Charge  d ) Affaires  ad  interim,  Bogota. 
Sir:  I  have  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  Mr.  Dawson's  No.  247, 
of  March  29  last,  reporting  on  the  events  growing  out  of  the  attempt 
made  by  the  President  of  Colombia  to  obtain  the  approval  of  the 
Colombian  Congress  of  the  treaties  concluded  by  the  Republic  of 
Colombia  with  the  United  States  and  Panama. 

The  department  desires  to  express  its  commendation  of  Mr.  Dawson 
for  his  admirable  and  illuminating  report  on  the  complicated  situa- 
tion of  affairs  in  Bogota. 

I  am,  sir.  your  obedient  servant, 

Huntington  Wilson, 

Acting  Secretary. 

.  1  merican  Charge  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

[Telegram.] 

American  Legation, 
Bogota,  May  10.  1909—10  p.  m. 
A  manifest  issued  by  the  President  of  Colombia  this  evening  re- 
ferring to  Holguin's  action  of  March  13  (see  telegram  of  the  legation 
of  the  14th  March),  postpones  consideration  of  the  treaties  until 
ordinary  session  of  Congress  next  February. 


American  Charge  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

[Telegram.] 

American  Legation. 

Bogota.  May  12 — 10  a.  m. 
"Referring  to  my  telegram  of  May  10,  9  p.  m..  minister  for  foreign 
affairs  called  me  to  explain  that  "He  believes  that  if  the  Govern- 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  233 

ment  submits  the  treaties  to  Congress  of  July  there  might  be  gen- 
eral disturbance.  The  treaties  are  being  used  as  a  political  weapon 
against  the  Government.  It  hopes  the  situation  will  change  for  the 
ordinary  Congress  in  February." 

Dawson  will  fully  explain  what  is  meant  by  my,  in  strict  con- 
fidence, saying  that  the  Government  of  Colombia  fears  it  can  not 
secure  the  ratification  either  at  present  or  in  February,  and  has  con- 
sequently sacrificed  the  treaties  in  the  hope  of  saving  itself  in  the 
coming  elections. 

Hibben. 


The  American  Charge  to  the  Secretary  of  Stoic. 

[Edited.] 

JNo.  262.]  American  Legation. 

Bogota,  May  13.  1909. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  refer  to  this  legation's  Nos.  259  and  261,1 
of  April  28  and  May  5,  respectively,  in  regard  to  the  political  situa- 
tion of  this  country,  and  to  my  cipher  telegrams  of  the  10th  and  12th 
instant,  respectively,  reporting  the  action  of  the  Government  of  Gen. 
Reyes  in  withdrawing  the  United  States-Panama-Colombia  treaties 
from  consideration  by  the  special  Congress  called  for  July  20,  for 
which  the  elections  are  to  be  held  the  30th  of  this  month.  With  refer- 
ence particularly  to  my  first  telegram,  I  have  the  honor  to  report  that 
the  situation  of  the  present  administration  is  of  the  gravest.  I  in- 
close herewith  copy  of  the  manifesto  of  the  President  of  the  Republic, 
to  which  reference  was  made  in  the  telegram  in  question,  accompanied 
by  a  translation  thereof.  The  initial  inconsistency  between  the  state- 
ments made  in  this  document  and  those  made  me  yesterday  by  Dr. 
Urrutia  is  characteristic  of  the  course  which  Gen.  Reyes  has  seen 
fit  to  adopt — a  course  of  vacillation,  which  has  led  him  to  this  final 
act  of  sacrificing  the  treaties  in  the  hope  of  maintaining  his  position 
as  personal  head  of  the  Government  and  virtual  autocrat  of  his 
country. 

It  is  necessary  for  a  clear  understanding  of  the  present  situation  to 
return  to  the  moment  of  the  departure  of  Mr.  Dawson.  From  that 
time  scarcely  a  day  has  passed  without  the  establishment  of  some 
new  newspaper — organs,  for  the  most  part,  of  the  opponents  of  the 
Government.  Shortly  after  Mr.  Dawson  left  a  paper  called  "  El 
Debate/'  the  organ  of  the  students  who  made  their  way  into  the  lega- 
tion on  the  9th  of  March,  and  a  strong  Liberal  journal,  supporting 
Dr.  Nicolas  Eaguerra  for  President  to  supplant  Gen.  Reyes,  began 
a  cowardly  attack  upon  Mr.  Dawson,  posting  up  throughout  the  city 
a  placard  purporting  to  be  a  certificate  of  a  number  of  these  students 
implying  that  Mr.  Dawson  had  made  a  false  statement  in  denying 
their  report  of  his  words  to  the  students  on  the  9th  of  March.  The 
journal  was  to-day  suppressed  as  a  result  of  a  protest  of  the  dean 
of  the  diplomatic  corps.  The  attack  on  Mr.  Dawson  was  an  attack, 
through  him,  upon  the  treaties  and  upon  the  Government.  The 
treaties  have  been,  indeed,  used  as  a  political  weapon  against  the 
Government.    From  day  to  day  articles  have  appeared  bitterly  assail - 

1  Not  printed  :  unimportant. 


234  DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA  CANAL. 

ing  the  United  States,  and  even  going  so  far  as  to  advocate  the  sever- 
ance of  diplomatic  relations. 

I  had  no  intimation  of  the  purpose  of  the  Government  to  withdraw 
the  treaties  and  knew  of  the  action  only  by  having  seen  the  manifesto 
posted  at  the  street  corners  on  the  evening  of  the  10th  instant.  I 
had  just  talked  with  the  minister  of  foreign  affairs  half  an  hour 
before,  but  he  had  told  me  nothing.  The  following  day  I  waited 
word  from  him  until  5  o'clock  in  the  evening.  When  he  finally  sent 
word  that  he  had  something  to  communicate  to  me  I  was  engaged 
with  the  Ecuadorean  and  Italian  ministers,  and  considering  it  expe- 
dient then  to  wait  until  I  could  see  the  results  of  the  manifesto  on 
the  antiadministration  press  in  the  morning,  I  availed  myself  of  this 
excuse  to  reply  that  I  would  call  at  9  the  succeeding  day.  The  oppo- 
sition papers,  however,  contained  little  comment. 

Dr.  Urrutia  wished  to  show  me  the  telegram  which  was  sent  to  the 
Colombian  Legation  at  Washington  after  I  left  the  ministry,  with 
instructions  to  assure  the  department  of  this  Government's  continued 
support  of  the  treaties.  The  minister  had  no  reason  to  offer  for  not 
having  informed  this  legation  of  the  administration's  contemplated 
action  earlier.  He  stated,  however,  that  the  President  had  become 
convinced  that  the  treaties  could  not  pass  the  Congress  in  July,  and 
had  decided,  in  order  to  avoid  having  them  rejected,  to  postpone 
their  consideration  until  the  meeting  of  the  regular  Congress  in  Feb- 
ruary, 1910.  He  had  only  the  vaguest  reasons  to  give  for  this  belief. 
I  asked  him  if  he  had  any  cause  to  believe  that  the  treaties  would 
more  readily  pass  the  Congress  of  1910  than  the  present  one,  and  he 
replied  that  he  hoped  so.  but  that  it  could  not  be  certain.  He  added 
that  the  President  feared  civil  war  if  the  Government  continued  to 
support  the  treaties,  and  that  he  had  been  assured  by  Mr.  Dawson 
that  our  Government  did  not  desire  to  bring  such  a  disaster  upon 
the  country.  When  I  pointed  out,  however,  that  if  it  were  as  cer- 
tain as  he  seemed  to  believe  that  the  treaties  could  not  pass  the  pres- 
ent Congress  there  would  scarcely  be  occasion  for  civil  war,  he  with- 
drew the  term  and  substituted  grave  disorders  at  the  elections.  I 
then  asked  him  what  he  wished  me  to  give  my  Government  as  the 
reason  for  this  official  action  in  thus  withdrawing  the  treaties  from 
consideration,  and  took  down  his  words  in  Spanish,  as  follows : 

Creo  que  si  el  Gobierno  somete  los  tratados  al  Congreso  de  Julio,  puede  haber 
conmoeion  general.  Los  tratados  se  toman  coroo  anna  eledtoral  contra  el 
Gobierno.  Este  espera  que  la  situacion  se  cambiarft  para  el  Congreso  ordinario 
de  Febrero. 

[Translation.] 

I  believe  tbat  if  the  Government  were  to  submit  the  treaties  to  the  July 
Congress  there  might  be  a  general  commotion.  The  treaties  are  being  used  as 
an  electoral  weapon  against  the  Government.  The  latter  hopes  for  a  change 
in  the  situation  before  the  regular  session  of  the  Congress  in  February. 

This  was  a  final  form,  much  altered  before  it  was  reached.  Of  it 
I  sent  a  translation  in  my  cable  of  yesterday. 

Dr.  Urrutia  went  from  this  interview  to  the  President.  Yesterday 
afternoon  I  know,  privately,  that  the  President  made  every  prepara- 
tion to  leave  the  country,  Holguin  remaining  in  the  exercise  of  the 
executive  functions.  He,  however,  again  changed  his  mind  and  de- 
cided to  remain.  Dr.  Urrutia,  who  alone,  I  believe,  has  been  of  con- 
sistent good  faith  in  his  attempt  to  secure  the  ratification  of  the 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  235 

treaties,  has  tendered  his  resignation,  which  at  this  hour  has  not 
been  accepted,  but  I  believe  will  be,  he  being  made  to  appear  as  the 
scapegoat  of  the  withdrawal  of  the  treaties. in  the  eyes  of  our  Gov- 
ernment. I  inclose  herewith,  accompanied  by  translation,  a  cutting 
from  La  Plume  Libre,1  of  yesterday's  date,  attacking  Dr.  Urrutia 
personally  for  his  efforts  in  behalf  of  the  treaties. 

I  transmit  at  the  same  time,  without  translation,  for  lack  of  oppor- 
tunity to  make  it.  an  article1  by  one  of  the  students,  who  have  always 
been  so  bitter  against  the  treaties,  which  expresses  much  of  the  sen- 
timent of  those  opponents  of  Reyes,  into  whose  hands  the  treaties 
will  fall  should  the  Government  be  defeated  at  the  coming  elections, 
which  now  seems  likely.  The  tone  of  the  article  shows  how  little 
hope  there  would  be  of  ratification  by  the  more  radical  liberals.  I 
inclose  a  translation  of  a  placard  posted  up  yesterday  throughout  the 
city,  and  emanating  from  one  of  the  liberal  electoral  organizations, 
advocating  the  representation  in  the  approaching  Congress  of  the 
"  Department  of  Panama " *  by  one  of  the  men  who  has  worked 
faithfully  for  the  reincorporation  of  Panama  with  Colombia. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  with  great  respect. 
Your  obedient  servant, 

Paxton  Hibben, 
Charge  d' A  f  aires  ad  interim. 


TREATIES. 

The  Government  postpones  the  discussion  of  the  treaties  with 
the  United  States  and  with  Panama  until  1910. 

MANIFEST. 

The  day  drawing  near  on  which  the  Colombian  people  will  exer- 
cise their  right  of  suffrage,  in  accordance  with  the  constitution 
and  laws  of  the  Republic,  I  consider  it  opportune  and  appropriate 
to  address  my  compatriots,  as  much  to  express  my  desire  that  this 
right  be  exercised  in  a  way  truty  correct  and  republican,  as  to  in- 
form them  of  the  purposes  of  the  Government  and  of  the  actual 
situation  of  the  country. 

There  have  been  received,  notices  by  telegraph  from  all  the  de- 
partments, according  to  which  the  citizens  have  registered  peace- 
fully and  with  interest  in  the  exercise  of  the  ballot  in  the  elections 
of  the  30th  of  May,  and  have  fulfilled  the  directions  of  the 
Government  by  inspiring  confidence  that  these  elections  will  take 
place  in  complete  peace,  that  the  popular  vote  will  be  respected 
and  by  avoiding  all  commotion  and  disturbances  which  might  limit 
or  harm  this  right. 

These  measures  and  the  confidence  which  the  public  has  and 
should  have  in  the  Government's  keeping  of  its  promise  to  make 
the  ballot  respected,  have  produced  a  general  situation  of  complete 
calm  and  the  certainty  the  same  will  reign  on  the  day  of  the 
election. 

1  Not  printed. 


236  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

The  country  is  presenting  an  example  of  prudence,  of  patriotism, 
and  of  civilization,  which  inspires  faith  in  its  future  and  the  con- 
servation of  peace.  It  is  to  be  hoped,  therefore,  that  the  coming 
election  will  be  the  first  to  be  held  in  this  country  in  complete  order, 
without  imposition  or  chicanery,  to  elect  representatives  of  the  peo- 
ple and  not  representatives  of  political  parties.  For  the  sake  of 
my  self-respect  and  the  respect  I  owe  my  compatriots  and,  above 
all.  my  country,  it  is  my  vehement  desire  that  personal  government 
be  avoided. 

In  the  address  of  the  1st  of  January  and  in  the  presidential  mes- 
sages directed  to  the  National  Assembly  during  its  last  session, 
I  set  forth  the  appropriateness  and  urgent  necessity  of  calling  a 
congress  of  popular  election  as  soon  as  possible,  which  will  meet 
the  20th  of  this  July,  thus  fulfilling  the  purpose  clearly  stated  to 
the  governors  in  telegraphic  circular  of  January  5  last,  known 
throughout  the  country. 

The  Government  has  received,  and  is  grateful  for,  the  patriotic 
manifestations,  made  by  distinguished  citizens  of  the  capitals  and 
of  important  cities  of  the  Departments,  recognizing  the  honesty  of 
its  initiative  in  calling  Congress  and  applauding  this  measure. 

The  urgency  of  the  meeting  of  the  Legislative  Chambers  proceeds 
principally  from  the  necessity  of  attending  to  important  economic 
and  fiscal  matters,  both  national  and  departmental,  in  view  of  the 
fact  that  these  latter  corporations  must  reorganize  their  administra- 
tion, as  provided  in  Law  7,  of  1909,  on  administrative  decentraliza- 
tion. 

In  respect  of  the  treaties  celebrated  with  the  United  States  and 
with  Panama,  a  considerable  part  of  national  opinion,  strengthened 
by  a  certain  number  of  reasons,  has  formulated  arguments  against 
some  of  the  principal  stipulations  of  the  negotiation  in  question. 

The  Government,  after  long  consideration  and  taking  into  account 
the  opinion  of  experienced  and  capable  persons,  approved  these 
treaties,  considering  them  suited  to  the  permanent  interests  of  the 
country,  given  the  existing  condition  of  events;  but  as.  in  treating 
of  the  matter,  the  grave  antecedent  circumstances  can  not  be  for- 
gotten, the  Government  considered,  duly,  as  the  designado  in  charge 
of  the  executive  power  put  it  in  the  message  which  he  addressed 
to  the  National  Assembly  the  13th  of  March,  last,  that  its  resolution 
ought  not  to  be  hastened,  but  that  it  should  wait  the  time  necessary 
for  the  whole  nation  to  study  them  and  to  form  the  judgment  which, 
in  its  \oity  opinion,  they  merit. 

In  this  order  of  ideas  it  did  not  hesitate  to  propose  to  the  honorable 
assembly  that  it  put  off  its  examination  until  the  next  session  of 
Congress. 

This  proposition  was  approved  by  that  lofty  body  with  visible  evi- 
dences of  applause. 

This  belief,  far  from  lessening,  has  grown  on  the  Government  over 
which  I  have  the  honor  to  preside  to  a  point  where  it  is  conceived  that 
more  time  should  be  given  the  nation  to  study  these  treaties  with 
all  the  maturity  that  its  importance  requires,  and  that  it  should  be  in 
its  regular  sessions  of  1910  that  Congress  should  occupy  itself  with 
them. 

The  importance  of  the  matters  in  which  the  legislative  power 
shall    be   occupied   imposes   the   necessity    that    the   election    of  its 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA  CANAL.  237 

members  should  fall  upon  citizens  free  of  prejudices  and  party  inter- 
ests, who  will  occupy  themselves  with  those  of  the  country  in  gen- 
eral, as  well  as  with  those  in  particular  of  the  regions  whence  they 
have  been  elected,  since  the  departmental  and  municipal  needs  to 
be  properly  organized. 

Annual  sessions  of  Congress,  whose  duty  it  is  to  decree  the  taxes 
and  the  expenditures  and  to  pass  the  laws  necessary  for  the  good 
progress  of  the  administration,  will  give  surer  solidness  to  a  Gov- 
ernment really  representative  and  of  popular  choice. 

Peace  is  solidly  assured  and  the  program  of  the  present  national 
administration,  of  which  the  President  should  be  the  chief  and  not 
a  political  party  program,  which  endangered  the  life  of  the  present 
head  of  the  Government,  is  to-day  upheld  and  sustained  by  the 
whole  nation,  and  we  should  hope  that  for  the  nation's  good  it  may 
continue  in  the  future. 

R.  Reyes. 

Bogota.  May  10, 1909. 

The  American  Charge  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

American  Legation, 
No.  268.]  Bogota,  May  27, 1909. 

Sir  :  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  the  depart- 
ment's No.  87,  confidential,  of  the  19th  ultimo,  inclosing,  for  the  con- 
fidential information  of  the  legation,  copies  of  notes  exchanged  be- 
tween the  Colombian  and  Panaman  ministers  at  Washington  con- 
cerning an  alleged  declaration  by  the  Panaman  minister  as  to  the 
meaning  of  the  words  "  region  de  Jurado  "  in  the  Panama-Colombia 
treaty. 

I  may  say  in  this  connection  that,  as  will  be  seen  from  the  inclos- 
ures  No.  2  in  this  legation's  dispatches  Nos.  261  and  264,1  an 
entirely  erroneous  impression  is  abroad  in  this  country  in  regard  to 
the  meaning  of  this  phrase  which  has,  more  than  any  one  element 
save  the  general  hostility  to  the  government  of  President  Reyes, 
served  to  produce  the  present  widespread  opposition  to  the  treaties 
and  to  inflame  public  feeling  against  the  United  States. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir, 

With  great  respect,  your  obedient  servant, 

Paxton  Hibben, 
Charge  d 'Affaires  ad  interim. 


Acting  Secretary  of  State  to  Legation  at  Bogota. 

[Telegram.] 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  June  11,  1909. 
Your  dispatches  May  13  to  19.     The  Government  of  the  United 
States  views  with  relative  indifference  the  question  of  the  ratifica- 
tion of  our  treaties  by  Colombia  and  Panama,  whose  interests  are 

1  Not  printed  ;  unimportant. 


238  DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

apparently  much  more  concerned.  This  Government  has  felt  san- 
guine of  their  ratification  only  owing  to  the  general  desirability  of 
settling  the  questions  involved,  and  particularly  as  being  beneficial  to 
Colombia  and  Panama  rather  than  to  the  United  States.  In  view 
of  the  absurd  distortion  of  this  situation  by  public  clamor  the  lega- 
tion should  make  the  above  attitude  well  known  and  for  the  rest 
should  maintain  an  impassive  and  dignified  attitude. 

Wilson. 


Minister  Squiers  to  Secretary  Knox. 

No.  508.]  American  Legation, 

Panama,  June  17,  1909. 

Sir  :  Referring  to  department's  cipher  cable  of  June  12 x  last, 
stating  department's  views  on  the  attitude  of  the  Colombian  and 
Panaman  Governments  toward  ratification  of  the  Colombian- 
Panania-United  States  treaty,  I  have  the  honor  to  say  that  I  have 
read  a  translation  of  the  cable  to  Mr.  Lewis,  minister  for  foreign 
affairs,  who  said  that  so  far  as  his  Government  is  concerned  everything 
has  been  done,  and  the  treaty  now  only  lacks  the  approval  of  the  Co- 
lombian Government.  lie  further  said  that  the  Colombian  Govern- 
ment, of  the  three  contracting  parties,  has  the  most  to  lose  through 
failure  to  ratify,  and  that  it  would  be  impossible  to  negotiate  an- 
other treaty,  in  the  event  that  this  one  fails  of  ratification,  contain- 
ing the  same  advantageous  provisions. 

T  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir, 
Your  obedient  servant, 

C.  T.  Squiers. 

Minister  Northcott  to  Secretary  of  State. 

[Telegram.] 

American  Legation, 

Bogota,  September  29,  1909. 

Minister  for  foreign  affairs  of  Colombia  stated  verbally  to-day 
and  promised  to  write  a  note  stating  it  is  the  desire  of  Colombia  to 
abandon  the  present  treaties,  because  it  is  quite  sure  that  they  would 
be  rejected  by  the  Congress,  and,  further,  that  it  is  the  desire  of  Co 
lombia  to  enter  into  negotiations  for  some  other  treaty  with  the 
United  States. 

Instruct  me  as  to  my  reply  to  the  official  note. 

Colombian  minister  for  foreign  affairs  also  stated  verbally  that 
he  desired  that  the  new  treaty,  if  our  Government  be  willing  to  make 
one,  be  negotiated  here. 

Northcott. 


Minister  Northcott  to  Secretary  of  State. 

No    12.1  American  Legation, 

Bogota,  October  1,  1909. 
Sir  :  I  have  the  honor  to  refer  to  my  cipher  telegram  of  the  29th 
ultimo  and,  in  that  connection,  to  report  that  about  two  weeks  ago 

1  Probably  means   telegram   of  June   11,   ante. 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY  OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  239 

while  attending  the  weekly  reception  of  Dr.  Carlos  Calderon,  the 
minister  for  foreign  affairs,  in  company  with  Mr.  Paxton  Hibben, 
the  secretary  of  the  legation,  Dr.  Calderon  informed  us  that  the 
Colombian  Government  had  concluded  that  it  would  be  useless  to 
present  the  United  States-Panama-Colombia  treaties  to  the  present 
session  of  Congress,  as  they  would  undoubtedly  be  rejected.  Dr. 
Calderon  then  presented  a  written  memorandum  in  Spanish,  copy 
and  translation  of  which  is  inclosed  herewith,  and  asked  me  to  agree 
to  sign  it  as  showing  the  existing  condition  of  affaire  between  the 
two  countries.  I  told  Dr.  Calderon  that  I  would  take  the  memo- 
randum and  consider  it  after  a  translation  was  made.  On  the 
following  Wednesday,  having  been  informed  unofficially  of  the  ap- 
pointment of  Dr.  Francisco  de  Paul  Borda's  appointment  as  min- 
ister to  the  United  States,  Dr.  Borda  being  the  father-in-law  of  Dr. 
Calderon,  in  company  with  Secretary  Hibben  I  called  on  Dr.  Cal- 
deron and  suggested  to  him  that  in  view  of  Dr.  Borda's  appoint- 
ment and  near  departure  to  Washington,  it  might  be  well  to  post- 
pone consideration  of  the  memorandum  he  had  presented  until  Dr. 
Borda  could  talk  matters  over  with  you,  to  which  Dr.  Calderon  re- 
plied that  he  would  rather  have  the  matter  settled  here  before  Dr. 
Borda's  departure. 

On  Wednesday,  September  29,  again  in  company  with  Secretary 
Hibben,  I  called  on  Dr.  Calderon  and  informed  him  that  I  did  not 
feel  justified  in  signing  the  memorandum  in  question,  for  the  fol- 
lowing reasons: 

First,  that  no  matter  how  strongly  he  and  I  might  be  convinced, 
from  indications  and  observations,  that  the  treaties  would  not  be 
ratified  by  the  Congress  of  Colombia,  we  could  not,  as  representa- 
tives of  our  respective  countries — and  I,  especially,  as  diplomatic 
representative  of  the  United  States,  had  not  the  right  to — prejudge 
the  action  of  the  Congress  and  assume  that  it  would  reject  treaties 
entered  into  and  signed  by  duly  authorized  representatives  of  the 
respective  countries,  treaties  already  ratified  by  the  Senate  of  the 
United  States,  and  to  the  securing  of  the  ratification  of  which  the 
executive  branch  of  the  Government  of  Colombia  is  morally  bound. 

Second,  that  in  the  event  that  the  Colombian  Congress  reject  the 
treaties,  I  had  not  been  instructed,  nor  was  I  informed,  as  to  the 
wishes  of  my  Government  on  the  subject  of  entering  into  any  further 
negotiations;  that  the  present  treaties  were  regarded  by  us  as  being 
of  more  benefit  to  Colombia  than  to  us,  and  that  under  the  circum- 
stances I  did  not  feel  authorized  to  state  that  we  were  ready  to  enter 
into  new  negotiations,  in  the  absence  of  express  instructions  from 
my  Government. 

I  then  told  Dr.  Calderon  that  I  would  gladly  communicate  the 
situation  to  the  department  by  cable  and  request  instructions. 

After  considering  the  matter  for  sometime,  Dr.  Calderon  stated 
formally,  that  as  representative  of  the  Colombian  Government  he 
now  gave  me  notice  that  his  Government  desired  to  cease  all  further 
consideration  of  the  treaties  because  of  the  impossibility  of  securing 
their  ratification  by  the  Congress,  and  desired  to  enter  into  negotia- 
tions, here  in  Bogota,  for  the  making  of  a  new  treaty  with  the  United 
States,  and  requested  that  I  notify  my  Government  of  his  statement. 
I  then  asked  Dr.  Calderon  if  he  would  kindly  write  me  a  formal 
note  containing  his  statements.     This  he  said  he  would  do  at  once. 


240  DIPLOMATIC    HISTOEY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

Up  to  the  time  of  the  sending  of  this  dispatch  the  note  promised 
by  Dr.  Calderon  has  not  been  received  by  the  legation. 

On  returning  from  the  ministry  for  foreign  affairs  I  sent  my  cable 
of  the  29th  ultimo. 

I  am  of  the  opinion  that  the  present  Colombian  Government 
does  not  desire,  for  political  reasons,  to  urge  the  ratification  of  the 
treaties,  and  that  if  it  did  so  desire  it  is  not  strong  enough  to  secure 
such  ratification. 

The  general  feeling  in  the  country  is  very  bitter  against  the  treaties 
and  against  us  as  a  Nation,  and  at  the  present  time  the  majority  of 
the  Senate  now  in  session  is  undoubtedly  against  the  treaties.  This 
is,  however,  a  country  of  startling  and  unexpected  political  changes 
and  it  is  impossible  to  foretell  what  may  happen. 

It  is  hard  to  see  how  the  present  financial  condition  of  Colombia 
could  be  worse  than  it  is,  and  the  financial  considerations  involved 
in  the  treaties  may  have  a  telling  effect  in  their  favor  in  the  near 
future,  though  there  is  no  indication  of  it  at  the  present  time. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir, 
Your  obedient  servant, 

Elliott  Northcott. 

Inclosures:  (1)  Memorandum  presented  to  the  American  minister 
by  the  minister  for  foreign  affairs,  September  15,  1909;  (2)  transla- 
tion of  the  same. 

[Inciosure  in  No.  12. — Translation.] 

In  Bogota,  the day  of — .  1909,  meeting  at  the  minis- 
try of  foreign  affairs  (of  the  Republic  of  Colombia),  the  minister 
for  foreign  affairs,  Dr.  Carlos  Calderon,  and  the  Hon.  Elliott  North- 
cott,  envoy  extraordinary  and  minister  plenipotentiary  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  the  minister  for  foreign  affairs  said : 

The  tone  of  frank  friendliness  which  has  characterized  all  the  acts  of  the 
minister  of  the  United  States  brings  to  the  Colombian  mind  the  conviction  that 
that  Nation  still  maintains  the  ample  spirit  of  equality  which  in  times  past  has 
served  as  a  base  of  relations  between  them. 

In  view  of  these  sentiments,  the  honorable  minister  of  the  United  States  has 
manifested  that,  having  celebrated  in  Washington,  on  the  9th  day  of  January, 
1909,  a  treaty  to  facilitate  the  direct  settlement  of  the  questions  pending  on  the 
declaration  of  independence  of  the  Colombian  Department  of  Panama  November 
3,  1903,  and  to  define  the  relative  position  of  Colombia  with  respect  to  the  canal 
which  the  United  States  is  constructing  across  the  Isthmus  in  virtue  of  a  con- 
vention celebrated  with  the  so-called  Republic  of  Panama,  and  this  treaty,  hav- 
ing been  postponed  to  consideration  by  the  Congress  of  Colombia,  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  United  States  wishes  to  know  what  are  the  intentions  of  the  Gov- 
ernment of  Colombia  in  reference  to  the  consideration  of  this  pact  by  the  legis- 
lative body  in  actual  session. 

The  minister  for  foreign  affairs  acceded  to  the  desires  of  the  min- 
ister of  the  United  States,  stating  that  the  Government  of  Colombia, 
wishing  to  be  agreeable  to  the  United  States,  is  ready  to  satisfy  the 
desires  of  said  Government  in  this  respect. 

But,  as  the  minister  of  the  United  States  may  have  observed,  there 
is  a  popular  opinion,  of  which  the  opinion  of  the  legislative  body  is 
but  an  echo,  that  the  treaty  of  Washington,  of  January  9,  1909,  be  not 
accepted,  and  for  the  same,  if  this  treaty  were  at  present  placed  be- 
fore the  legislative  body,  it  would  certainly  be  disapproved. 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  241 

The  minister  of  the  United  States  stated  that  his  Government  in 
this  particular  matter  has  no  other  interest  than  that  of  Colombia, 
and  that  it  has  noted,  as  far  as  has  been  possible,  the  dominant  opinion 
in  the  Republic  in  reference  to  this  compact  so  many  times  mentioned, 
the  which  is  motive  enough  that  the  Government  of  the  United  States 
should  not  insist  that  this  treaty  be  considered  by  the  Congress  if, 
as  has  been  affirmed,  the  desire  of  its  Government  consists  in,  above 
all,  satisfying  the  desires  and  the  rights  of  the  Republic  of  Colombia, 
and  not  of  insisting  that  it  enter  into  negotiations  which  do  not  have 
the  spontaneous  approval  of  the  nation. 

The  minister  for  foreign  affairs  observed  that  finding  the  two  Gov- 
ernments at  one  in  just  purpose  and  animated  by  the  firm  intention 
of  satisfying  their  reciprocal  rights,  the  laying  aside  of  the  consid- 
eration of  the  treaty  of  January  the  9th,  1909,  brings  as  a  consequence 
that  the  relations  of  all  kinds  which  exist  between  this  Republic  and 
the  United  States  and  the  regulation  of  all  rights  between  them 
shall  be  governed  by  the  treaty  of  Washington,  December  12,  1846, 
whose  validity  neither  of  the  contracting  parties  has  placed  in  doubt, 
which,  in  his  opinion,  in  the  face  of  the  necessity  of  defining  the  re- 
ciprocal situation  of  the  two  nations  and  their  respective  rights  and 
obligations  for  acts  which  have  been  matter  for  complaint  on  the 
part  of  Colombia,  there  arises  the  necessity  for  an  agreement  as  to 
the  manner  in  which  this  is  to  be  done  by  virtuue  of  special  negotia- 
tions which  shall  carry  both  the  legal  relations  of  the  two  countries 
to  the  status  existing  before  the  project  of  the  treaty  of  1909  and 
the  protocols  of  Cartagena  and  Washington,  which  served  as  itsbase ; 
and  from  this  there  arises  the  necessity  of  knowing,  as  a  preliminary, 
whether  the  two  parties  who  have  such  a  treaty  to  celebrate  are  ready 
to  open  negotiations  with  the  end  to  a  settlement  of  the  obligations 
which  each  should  fulfill. 

The  honorable  minister  of  the  United  States  agreed  heartily  in  the 
sentiments  expressed  by  the  minister  for  foreign  affairs — that  is, 
that  the  Government  of  the  United  States  is  found  willing  to  open 
the  negotiations  which  may  be  necessary  to  the  satisfaction  of  the 
rights  of  Colombia  and  will  receive  and  take  into  consideration  the 
bases  which  may  be  submitted  for  such  negotiations,  to  which  the 
minister  for  foreign  affairs  replied,  offering  to  present  the  honorable 
legation  the  bases  of  the  convention,  which,  in  his  opinion,  conform 
to  the  honor  and  highest  rights  and  interests  of  Colombia  and  of 
the  United  States. 


Acting  Secretary  Adee  to  Minister  Northcott. 

[Telegram.] 

Department  of  State. 
Washington,  October  4,  1900. 
Confidential.     Your  September  29,  6  p.  m. 

In  conversation  you  may  say  to  the  Colombian  minister  for  foreign 
affairs  that  the  treaties  of  the  United  States  with  Colombia  and 
Panama  were  negotiated  in  connection  with  and  in  facilitation  of  the 
settlement  between  Colombia  and  Panama,  which  the  United  States 

42112— S.  Doc.  474,  63-2 16 


242  DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA  CANAL. 

used  its  friendly  offices  to  bring  about.  The  three  treaties  so  nego- 
tiated stand  or  fall  together.  No  substitutionary  treaty  could  be 
considered  without  harmonious  agreement  of  all  three  parties.  You 
may  express  your  personal  belief  that  no  such  agreement  could  be 
reached  on  terms  as  advantageous  to  all  three  as  the  treaties  now 
pending,  if,  indeed,  in  the  light  of  subsequent  happenings,  any  tri- 
partite agreement  were  likely. 

Adee. 


Minister  Northcott  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

No.  14.]  American  Legation, 

Bogota,  October  7, 1909. 

Sir  :  I  have  the  honor  to  report  that  on  the  4th  day  of  October  the 
legation  received  from  Dr.  Carlos  Calderon,  minister  for  foreign 
affairs,  the  note  referred  to  in  this  legation's  No.  12,  as  being  prom- 
ised in  a  verbal  interview  with  the  minister.  On  Wednesday,  Octo- 
ber G,  in  company  with  Secretary  Hibben,  I  had  another  interview 
with  Dr.  Calderon,  and  in  accordance  with  the  department's  cable  of 
12  noon,  October  4,  1909,  informed  him  "  that  the  treaties  of  the 
United  States  with  Colombia  and  Panama  were  negotiated  in  con- 
nection with  and  in  facilitation  of  a  settlement  between  Colombia 
and  Panama  which  the  United  States  used  its  friendly  offices  to  bring 
about."  That  "  the  three  treaties  so  negotiated  stand  or  fall  to- 
gether." And  that  "  no  substitutionary  treaties  could  be  considered 
without  harmonious  agreement  of  all  three  parties."  I  also  ex- 
pressed the  personal  belief  that  no  such  agreement  could  be  reached 
on  terms  as  advantageous  to  all  three  as  the  treaties  now  pending,  if 
in  the  light  of  subsequent  happenings  any  tripartite  agreement  were 
likely. 

Dr.  Calderon  replied  that  it  had  been  his  conception  that  an  agree- 
ment between  Panama  and  Colombia  would  follow  upon  the  comple- 
tion of  the  negotiations  which  he  had  proposed  between  Colombia 
and  the  United  States,  but  that  in  a  day  or  two  he  would  write  the 
legation  a  note  expressing  the  Colombian  Government's  views  as  to 
the  treaty  with  Panama  and  would  then  like  an  answer  in  writing 
to  his  note. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir, 
Your  obedient  servant, 

Elliott  Northcott. 

[Inclosure   in   No.    14.] 

Republic  of  Colombia, 
Ministry  for  Foreign  Affairs, 

Bogota,  October  2,  1909. 
Mr.  Minister:  In  the  various  conferences  which  I  have  had  the 
honor  to  hold  with  your  excellency  in  reference  to  the  treaty,  signed 
by  the  Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States,  the  Hon.  Elihu  Root, 
and  the  Colombian  plenipotentiary,  Sr.  Cortes,  on  the  9th  of  Janu- 
ary, I  have  thought  it  opportune  to  advise  your  excellency  that  the 
consensus  of  public  opinion  in  this  country  is  notoriously  adverse 
to  that  compact. 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  243 

In  the  judgment  of  the  Colombian  Government,  if  this  were  placed 
before  the  legislature  it  would  be  disapproved  without   vacillation. 

The  Colombian  Government,  desirous  of  considering  in  the  most 
friendly  way  in  its  power  the  questions  originating  from  the  proc- 
lamation of  independence  made  by  the  Colombian  Department  of 
Panama,  November  3,  1903,  has  delayed  until  now  the  presenting 
of  this  treaty,  to  which  I  have  referred,  to  the  Congress  for  its  con- 
sideration, and  desires  that  your  excellency  inform  it  whether  the 
Government  of  the  United  States,  in  view  of  existing  circumstances. 
would  be  pleased  to  have  the  Government  of  Colombia  abandon  the 
submission  of  this  treaty  to  the  Congress  for  its  consideration.  In 
case  that  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  persisting  in  the  de- 
sire manifested  by  your  excellency,  of  taking  under  consideration, 
in  questions  relating  to  the  interests  of  Colombia,  the  desire  of  this 
nation,  expressed  by  its  constitutional  organs,  prefer  that  the  Gov- 
ernment of  Colombia  abandon  the  submission  of  the  treaty  to  legis- 
lative approval,  this  ministry  will  be  found  ready  to  enter  into  new 
negotiations  with  your  excellency  in  relation  to  those  questions  to 
which  we  have  alluded  if  the  Government  of  the  United  States  is 
similiarly  disposed. 

I  gladly  avail  myself  of  this  opportunity  to  reiterate  to  your  ex- 
cellency the  assurance  of  my  most  distinguished  considerations. 

(Signed)  Carlos  Caideron. 

Hon.  Elliott  Northcott, 

Envoy  Extraordinary  and  Minister  Plenipotentiary 

of  the  United  States  of  America. 


Minister  Northcott  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

[Telegram.] 

American  Legation, 

Bogota,  October  13,  1909. 

Your  cipher  telegram,  October  4,  12  noon.  A  note  has  been  re- 
ceived from  the  minister  for  foreign  affairs  of  Colombia  stating  that, 
in  the  conception  of  the  Government  of  Colombia,  the  abandonment 
Root- Cortes  treaty  will  virtually  eliminate  the  treaty  with  Panama, 
and  that,  in  the  event  of  this  abandonment.  Colombian  Government 
will  present  the  legation  with  a  statement  of  the  bases  upon  which 
it  would  be  willing  to  enter  into  negotiations  with  the  United  States 
if  a  favorable  reply  should  be  made  to  the  note  of  Colombian  minis- 
ter for  foreign  affairs,  contents  of  which  in  my  telegram  of  September 
29,  6  p.  m. 

Colombian  minister  for  foreign  affairs  to-day  verbally  stated  that 
Colombian  Government  has  no  intention  to  enter  into  negotiations 
with  Panama  until  after  the  treaty  with  the  United  States  is  com- 
pleted, if  then,  and  that  whether  or  not  Colombian  Government 
would  be  willing  to  enter  into  negotiations  with  Panama  will  de- 
pend upon  the  character  of  the  arrangement  with  the  United  State-. 

I  replied  verbally,  according  to  my  instructions  your  cipher  tele- 
gram October  4,  12  noon.     Colombian  minister  for  foreign  affairs. 


244  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY  OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

however,  is  desirous  of  written  reply  to  his  note  referred  to  in  my 
telegram  of  September  29,  6  p.  m. 
I  shall  wait  for  instructions. 
»  Northcott. 


Acting  Secretary  Adee  to  Minister  Northcott. 

[Telegram.] 

Department  or  State, 
Washington,  October  23,  1909. 

Your  October  13,  5  p.  m. 

The  treaty  between  United  States  and  Colombia  was  negotiated 
in  order  to  facilitate  the  negotiation  between  Colombia  and  Panama, 
and  to  that  end  the  United  States  graciously  conferred  favors  upon 
Colombia  in  regard  to  the  use  of  the  canal  and  gave  Colombia  other 
advantages  as  equivalents  for  the  agreement  between  Colombia  and 
Panama  besides  aiding  Panama  to  carry  out  the  engagements  of  the 
Colombia-Panama  treat}'.  The  statement  of  the  Colombian  minister 
for  foreign  affairs  that  the  abandonment  of  the  Root-Cortes  treaty 
will  virtually  eliminate  the  treaty  with  Panama  means  in  effect  that 
the  consideration  upon  which  the  favors  of  the  Root-Cortes  treaty 
were  predicated  is  to  be  treated  as  nonexistent,  thus  eliminating  the 
initial  reason  for  a  new  treaty  between  United  States  and  Colombia. 
It  would  be  impossible  for  the  United  States  to  impose,  by  inde- 
pendent convention  with  Colombia,  any  conditions  constraining  the 
free  hand  of  Colombia  and  Panama  in  settling  their  questions  by 
mutual  agreement.  Whether  the  United  States  would  be  in  a  posi- 
tion to  make  any  treaty  with  Colombia  would  depend  on  ascertain- 
ment of  the  terms  on  which  Colombia  and  Panama  may  agree,  and 
then  the  United  States  could  only  consider  such  arrangement  with 
Colombia  as  might  facilitate  the  Colombian-Panama  agreement.  In 
short,  the  whole  tripartite  accord  would  have  to  be  done  over  again, 
with  little  or  no  prospect  of  reaching  conclusions  as  favorable  to  all 
three  parties  as  those  which  Colombia  proposes  to  set  aside.  In  the 
light  of  subsequent  events  it  is  more  than  doubtful  if  even  similarly 
favorable  concessions  by  us  to  Colombia  and  Panama  could  gain 
the  approval  of  the  United  States  Senate.  For  these  reasons  the 
Government  of  the  United  States  must  decline  to  acquiesce  in  wiping 
out  the  tripartite  treaty  and  can  not  enter  upon  a  separate  negotia- 
tion with  Colombia  alone. 

Adee,  Acting. 


Acting  Secretary  Wilson  to  Minister  Northcott. 

No.  15.]  Department  or  State, 

Washington,  October  28,  1909. 
Sir:  The  department  has  received  your  Xo.  12  of  the  1st  instant 
inclosing  copy  and  translation  of  a  memorandum  which  the  Colom- 
bian minister  for  foreign  affairs  requested  you  to  sign  with  him. 
proposing  that  as  it  would  be  impossible  to  obtain  the  consent  of  the 
Colombian  Congress  to  the  ratification  of  the  United  States-Panama- 
Colombia  treaties,  those  treaties  be  dropped  and  negotiations  be 
opened  at  Bogota. 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  245 

The  department  commends  your  action  in  declining  to  sign  the 
memorandum-protocol. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

Huntington  Wilson. 

Acting  Secretary  of  State. 


Minister  Nortkcott  to  Secretary  of  State. 

No.  20.]  American  Legation. 

Bogota,  October  29,  1909. 

Sir  :  I  have  the  honor  to  report  that  in  accord  with  the  instruc- 
tions contained  in  the  department's  cable  of  October  23,  1909,  on 
Wednesday  last,  October  27,  1909,  accompanied  by  Secretary  Hibben, 
I  delivered  to  Dr.  Carlos  Calderon,  Colombian  minister  for  foreign 
affairs,  an  answer  in  writing  to  his  notes  suggesting  the  abandonment 
of  the  tripartite  treaties  and  the  opening  of  negotiations  for  a  new 
treaty  with  the  United  States.  A  copy  of  my  note  is  inclosed  here- 
with. 

At  the  interview  which  took  place  on  the  delivery  of  the  note, 
immediately  after  receiving  and  reading  it,  Dr.  Calderon  stated 
verbally,  that  the  present  Colombian  Government  could  not  enter 
into  negotiations  of  any  kind  with  Panama,  as  it  (the  Government 
of  Colombia  as  at  present  constituted),  regarded  the  United  States 
as  being  solely  responsible  for  the  separation  of  Panama.  To  which 
statement  we  replied  that  that  view  was  not  conceded  by  the  United 
States  in  the  slightest  degree. 

At  a  dinner  given  by  the  President  at  the  palace  last  night,  which 
we  attended,  Secretary  Hibben  had  personal  and  unofficial  conver- 
sations with  Dr.  Borda.  the  newly  appointed  Colombian  minister 
to  the  United  States,  and  with  Dr.  Calderon.  These  conversations 
Mr.  Hibben  will  report  to  you  in  person. 

The  feeling  here  is  still  very  strong  against  the  United  States,  and 
if  submitted  to  the  present  Congress  the  treaties  would,  in  all  proba- 
bility, be  overwhelmingly  rejected. 

The  present  session  of  Congress  here  is  expected  to  end  within  two 
weeks,  and  it  is  not  now  generally  believed  that  the  Colombian  Gov- 
ernment will  submit  the  treaties  to  the  present  session. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be.  sir, 
Your  obedient  servant, 

Elliott  Northcott. 

Inclosures:  (1)  Copv  of  note  to  Colombian  foreign  office,  dated 
October  27,  1909. 

[Inelosure  in  No.  20.] 

F.  O.  No.  14.]  October  26,  1909. 

Mr.  Minister:  In  comment  upon  the  memorandum  with  which 
your  excellency  presented  me  on  the  22d  of  September  in  regard  to 
a  conversation  which  I  had  had  the  honor  of  holding  with  your 
excellency  as  to  the  abandonment  of  the  tripartite  treaties  signed  in 
Washington  on  January  the  29th,  last,  by  the  plenipotentiaries  of 
the  Republics  of  Colombia  and  Panama  and  the  United  States  of 
America,  and  in  reply  to  your  excellency's  courteous  note  of  the 


246  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

2d  instant,  and  of  the  subsequent  personal  note  which  your  excellency 
was  good  enough  to  send  me  on  the  9th  instant,  I  have  the  honor 
to  reply  to  the  proposition  for  the  negotiation  of  a  new  convention 
between  Colombia  and  the  United  States,  as  a  consequence  of  the 
abandonment,  proposed  by  your  excellency,  of  the  present  treaties, 
under  instruction  of  my  Government,  as  follows : 

The  treaty  of  January  9,  between  Colombia  and  the  United  States 
was  negotiated  in  order  to  facilitate  the  negotiations  between  Colom- 
bia and  Panama,  and  to  that  end  the  United  States  conferred  favors 
upon  Colombia  in  regard  to  the  use  of  the  canal  and  gave  Colombia 
other  advantages  as  equivalents  for  the  agreement  between  Colombia 
and  Panama,  besides  aiding  Panama  to  carry  out  the  engagements 
of  the  Colombia-Panama  treaty. 

Your  excellency's  statement  in  the  personal  note  to  which  I  have 
referred,  that  the  abandonment  of  the  Koot-Cortes  treaty  will  vir- 
tually eliminate  the  treaty  with  Panama,  means,  in  effect,  that  the 
considerations  upon  which  the  favors  of  that  treaty  were  predicated 
is  to  be  treated  as  nonexistent,  thus  eliminating  the  initial  reason 
for  a  new  treaty  between  the  United  States  and  Colombia.  It 
would  be  impossible  for  the  United  States  to  impose,  by  inde- 
pendent convention  with  Colombia,  any  conditions  constraining 
the  free  hand  of  Colombia  and  Panama,  in  settling  their  questions 
of  mutual  agreement. 

Whether  the  United  States  would  be  in  any  position  to  make  any 
treaty  with  Colombia  would  depend  upon  the  ascertainment  of  the 
terms  on  which  Colombia  and  Panama  may  agree  and  the  United 
States  could  only  consider  such  an  agreement  with  Colombia  as 
might  facilitate  the  Colombia-Panama  agreement.  In  short,  the 
wThole  tripartite  agreement  would  have  to  be  done  over  again  with 
the  probability  of  no  prospect  of  reaching  conclusions  as  favorable 
to  all  three  parties  as  those  which  your  excellency's  Government 
proposes  to  set  aside.  Indeed,  in  light  of  subsequent  events,  it  is 
more  than  doubtful  if  even  similarly  favorable  concessions  by  the 
United  States  to  Colombia  could  gain  the  approval  of  the  United 
States  Senate,  as  I  have  had  the  honor  to  point  out  to  your  ex- 
cellency in  conversation  on  several  occasions. 

For  these  reasons,  the  Government  of  the  United  States  must  de- 
cline to  acquiesce  in  wiping  out  the  tripartite  treaty  and  can  not 
enter  upon  a  separate  negotiation  with  Colombia  alone. 

I  avail  myself  of  the  opportunity  to  renew  to  your  excellency  the 
assurance  of  my  distinguished  consideration 

(Signed)  Elliott  Northcott. 

Dr.  Carlos  Calderon, 

Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs. 


The  Secretary  of  State  to  Minister  Northcott. 

No.  17.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  November  4,  1909. 
Sir:  The  department  has  received  your  No.  14  of  the  7th  ultimo, 
relative  to  the  proposed  treaty  between  the  United  States,  Colombia, 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  247 

and  Panama,  and  in  reply  you  are  referred  to  the  cabled  instructions 
of  October  4  and  23,  as  defining  the  department's  attitude  on  the 
subject. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

Huntington  Wilson 

(For  Mr.  Knox). 


Minister  Northcott  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

[Telegram.] 

Bogota,  January  5,  1910. 

(Received  6th.) 
January  5,  5  p.  m.1 

Colombian  minister  for  foreign  affairs  requested  me  verbally  to 
ask  my  Government  if  United  States  and  Panama  would  agree  to 
submit  question  of  separation  of  Panama  from  Colombia  to  vote  of 
citizens  of  Panama.  Terms  of  settlement  of  all  questions  according 
to  the  result  of  vote  to  be  previously  agreed  upon  by  the  three  Gov- 
ernments. The  interests  of  the  United  States  in  Canal  Zone  in  no 
event  to  be  affected. 

Colombian  Government  claims  it  is  impossible  to  secure  ratification 
of  Root-Cortez  treaties  without  thereby  causing  [revolution?].  I 
believe  this  is  true  as  public  opinion  now  stands,  and  that  the  present 
proposition  is  made  with  the  expectation  of  vote  being  for  separation, 
but  with  the  hope  that  a  vote  of  Panama  will  so  far  satisfy  Colom- 
bian people  as  to  allow  ratification  of  some  satisfactory  treaties. 

Northcott. 


Minister  Northcott  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

No.  53.]  American  Legation, 

Bogota,  February  18,  1910. 
Sir:  On  the  5th  of  January  last  I  had  the  honor  to  send  you  the 
following  code  cable  :2 

Since  then,  on  every  occasion  that  I  have  seen  him,  Dr.  Calderon, 
the  Colombian  minister  for  foreign  affairs,  has  inquired  anxiously  of 
me  as  to  what  reply  I  have  received.  Not  having  received  your  in- 
structions up  to  this  time,  I  have  so  told  him,  but  I  should  like  very 
much,  if  it  meets  with  your  approval,  to  be  cabled  upon  receipt  of 
this,  if  no  directions  have  as  yet  been  sent,  what  reply  to  make. 
I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir, 
Your  obedient  servant, 

Elliott  Northcott. 

1  Memorandum  Added  in  the  Department  of  State. — Referring  to  Mr.  Northcott's 
communication  of  the  Colombian  request  that  the  question  of  a  separation  of  Panama 
from  Colombia  be  submitted  to  a  plebiscite  vote,  you  will  find  in  Foreign  Relations  for 
1903,  p.  333  et  seq.,  that  the  several  municipalities  of  Panama  unanimously  approved 
the  ratification  of  the  canal  treaty  by  the  Provisional  Government  of  Panama. 

The  people  of  Panama  also  elected,  afterwards,  representatives  to  a  congress  of  the 
Republic  by  almost  unanimous  votes. 

These  two  acts  were  as  completely  a  ratification  of  the  separation  from  Colombia  as 
the  election  of  republican  chambers  in  France  in  1871  was  a  ratification  of  the  down- 
fall of  Napoleon  and  the  creation  of  a  Republic. 

2  Printed  ante. 


248  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL. 

Acting  Secretary  Wilson  to  American  Legation  at  Bogota. 

[Telegram.] 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  March  24, 1910. 
Answering  your  dispatch  No.  53  and  your  January  5,  5  p.  m.,  you 
are  informed  that  the  attitude  of  the  department  as  outlined  in  its 
telegram  of  June  11.  1909.  remains  unchanged. 

Wilson. 


Minister  Northcott  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

No.  81.]  American  Legation, 

Bogota,  May  13,  1910. 
Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  report  that  on  Wednesday  last.  May  11, 
while  calling  on  the  Colombian  minister  for  foreign  affairs,  in  com- 
pany with  Secretary  Frazier,  the  minister  handed  me  a  note,  dated 
December  20,  1909,  dealing  with  the  tripartite  treaties.  The  minister 
stated  at  the  time  that  he  had  held  the  note  hoping  that  something 
would  come  of  his  suggestion  as  to  a  plebiscite,  but  that  he  now 
thought  it  best  to  deliver  it. 

Copy  of  note  referred  to  and  translation,  together  with  my  reply 
thereto,  are  inclosed,  marked  Nos.  1,  2,  and  3. 
I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir, 
Your  obedient  servant, 

Elliott  Northcott. 

[Inclosure   1  in   No.  81 — translation.] 

Foreign  Office, 
Bogota,  December  20,  1909. 

Mr.  Minister  :  Referring  to  the  esteemed  note  which  your  excellency 
addressed  to  me  on  the  26th  of  October  last  regarding  the  views  of  the 
Government  of  the  United  States  upon  the  treaties  of  January  9  last, 
it  is  my  duty  to  allude  to  the  friendly  sentiments  which  have  sug- 
gested to  the  Government  of  Colombia  the  idea  of  omitting  the 
treaties  of  Washington  rather  than  to  ask  of  the  Colombian  Congress 
an  approval  which  in  all  probability  would  be  refused. 

The  Government  of  Colombia  does  not  consider  it  an  opportune 
moment  to  explain  to  your  excellency  the  motives  of  the  obligations 
incurred  in  the  treaties  in  behalf  of  this  Republic,  but  in  view  of  the 
declarations  made  to  the  Cabinet  in  Washington  from  1903  until 
last  year,  in  relation  to  the  events  which  in  1903  determined  the  inde- 
pendence of  the  Isthmus  of  Panama  and  of  the  solemn  agreements 
binding  the  two  Republics,  they  (the  Government  of  Colombia)  be- 
lieve it  necessary  to  state  that  the  true  purpose  of  these  treaties  is,  in 
their  opinion,  to  define  the  legal  relations  which  have  arisen  between 
the  three  contracting  parties  as  a  result  of  the  events  above  referred 
to;  that  is  to  say,  the  monetary  advances  to  Colombia,  stipulated  in 
the  treaties  of  the  9th  of  January,  did  not  have  and  can  not  have  the 
character  of  favors  but  of  compensation  or  indemnity  for  acts  which. 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL.  249 

in  their  judgment,  have  inflicted  prejudice  and  caused  injury  to  their 
duly  acquired  rights. 

Without  reproducing  at  present  the  extensive  and  weighty  argu- 
ments of  various  kinds,  with  which  Colombia  has  supported  her 
demands  before  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  I  believe  it 
nevertheless  to  be  my  duty  to  remind  your  excellency  that  the  char- 
acter which  must  be  given  to  negotiations  through  which  an  agree- 
ment may  be  reached  upon  pending  questions  is  not  a  matter  of  the 
first  importance  to  the  Government  of  Colombia  so  long  as  the  honor 
and  vital  interests  of  the  contracting  parties  are  not  compromised. 

In  the  meantime  I  beg  your  excellency  will  accept  the  manifesta- 
tions contained  in  this  dispatch  as  an  expression  of  the  sincere  desire 
which  animates  the  Government  of  Colombia  to  facilitate  an  agree- 
ment which  may  satisfy  every  legitimate  right  and  every  considera- 
tion of  honor  involved  in  the  differences  existing  between  the  two 
States. 

(Signed)  Carlos  Calderon. 

Elliott  Northcott,  Esq., 
Envoy  Extraordinary  and  Minister  Plenipotentiary 

of  the  United  States  of  America. 

[Copy  to  accompany  dispatch  No.  81.] 

No.  41.]  May  12,  1910. 

Your  Excellency:  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt 
of  your  excellency's  esteemed  note  of  December  20,  1909,  which  your 
excellency  was  good  enough  to  hand  to  me  personally  yesterday.  In 
reply  I  beg  to  say  that  I  have  noted  your  excellency's  sentiments  in 
regard  to  the  treaties  of  Washington  and  that  I  will  duly  transmit 
them  to  my  Government. 

I  avail  myself  of  this  opportunity  to  reiterate  to  your  excellency 
the  assurance  of  my  most  distinguished  consideration. 

(Signed)  Elliott  Northcott. 

Doctor  Carlos  Calderon, 

Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs,  etc. 


PART  IV-b. 

PAPERS  SUBMITTED  RELATING  TO  THE  HAY-CONCHA 
NEGOTIATIONS. 

List  of  Cobbespondence  Relating  to  the  Hay-Concha  Negotiations  in  1902. 

From  Colombian  legation,  March  31,  1902.     (Not  included.    Printed  in  H.  Doc. 

611,  57th  Cong.,  1st  sess.) 
From  same,  March  31,  1902.     (Not  included.    Printed  in  H.  Doc.  611,  57th  Cong., 

1st  sess.) 
To  same,  April  5.  1902. 
From  same,  April  8,  1902. 
To  same,  April  18,  1902. 
From  same,  April  IS,  1902.     (Not  included.    Printed  in  H.  Doc.  611,  57th  Cong., 

1st  sess.) 
To  same,  April  21,  3902.     (Not  included.     Printed  in  H.  Doc.  611,  57th  Coug., 

1st  sess.) 
From  same,  April  23,  1902.     (Not  included.    Printed  in  H.  Doc.  611,  57th  Cong., 

1st  sess.) 
To  same,  July  18,  1902. 
From  same,  July  19,  1902. 
To  same,  July  21,  1902. 
From  same,  September  22,  1902. 
From  same,  October  26,  1902. 
To  same,  October  28,  1902. 
From  same,  November  11,  1902. 
From  same,  November  11,  1902. 
To  same,  November  5,  1902. 
To  same,  November  18,  1902. 
From  same,  November  22,  1902. 


No.  4.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  April  5, 1902. 
Senor  Jose  Vicente  Concha,  etc. 

Sir  :  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  note  of 
the  31st  ultimo,  expressing  certain  of  the  conditions  under  which 
Colombia  is  willing  to  grant  to  the  United  States  the  right  to  con- 
struct the  Panama  Canal. 

I  have  the  honor  to  say  in  reply  that,  as  I  have  orally  stated  to 
you,  this  important  matter  is  having  earnest  consideration. 
Accept,  etc., 

John  Hay. 


[Copy — Translation.] 

Legation  of  Colombia, 
Washington,  D.  C,  April  8,  1902. 
Mr.  Secretary  :  By  express  orders  of  my  Government  I  have  the 
honor  to  address  your  excellency  for  the  purpose  of  entering  a  state- 
ment and  a  protest  in  regard  to  the  projected  canal  between  the  At- 
lantic and  Pacific  Oceans,  over  what  has  been  styled  the  Nicaragua 

250 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE    PANAMA   CANAL.  251 

route,  in  so  far  as  the  said  project  may  affect  the  sovereign  rights  of 
Colombia  in  the  event  of  its  including,  as  is  to  be  presumed,  terri- 
tory that  the  Republic  of  Colombia  has  always  held  to  be  her  own; 
and  I  particularly  address  your  excellency  by  reason  of  the  present 
pendency  in  legislative  houses  of  the  United  States  of  a  bill  authoriz- 
ing your  Government  to  acquire  the  necessary  zone  and  to  cam7  on 
the  above-mentioned  work  in  territory  that  may.  in  part,  come 
within  the  foregoing  description. 

The  Government  that  I  represent,  adhering  to  its  traditional  and 
constant  position  on  this  point,  desires  to  reaffirm  its  rights,  as  it 
has  done  in  the  course  of  the  last  century,  and  to  recite  again  the 
grounds  upon  which  it  rests  this  affirmation  by  giving  a  succinct 
statement  of  its  titles  and  a  history  of  the  antecedents  of  the  question. 

Colombia  Mosquitia,  which  lies  in  the  Province  of  Veragua  as  far 
as  Cape  Gracia  a  Dios,  always  was,  after  the  year  1509,  integral  part 
of  the  "  Reino  de  Tierra  firme"  (Isthmus  of  Panama),  then  of  the 
vice  royalty  of  Santa  Fe  or  New  Granada,  with  occasional  and  transi- 
tory dependency  on  the  captancies  of  Cuba  and  Guatemala,  until 
the  20th  of  November,  1803,  when  a  royal  order,  dated  in  San  Lo- 
renzo, finally  restored  part  of  the  Mosquito  Coast  to  the  vice  royalty. 
Evidence  of  this  is  found  in  the  capitulations  for  the  conquest  and 
colonization  of  the  Province  of  Veragua  and  in  Laws  IV  and  IX  of 
the  Indies. 

Throughout  the  colonial  administration,  from  1803  and  on,  the 
Government  of  the  vice  royalty  constantly  exercised  jurisdiction 
over  that  territory  as  proved,  among  other  documents,  by  the  block- 
ade decreed  by  the  general  of  the  Army  of  Spain  in  1815,  when  Cape 
Gracias  a  Dios  is  described  as  the  extreme  point  of  the  coast  of  the 
"  Nuevo  Reyno." 

In  the  first  years  of  the  independence  the  Government  of  New 
Granada  exercised  jurisdiction  over  the  Mosquito  Coast,  as  evidenced 
by  its  decrees  of  April  19  and  November  22,  1622. 

In  1823,  by  reason  of  the  occupation  of  the  mouths  of  the  San 
Juan  River  and  adjacent  rivers  of  the  San  Andres  Archipelago  by  a 
Chilean  privateer,  Colombia  made  representations  in  vindication 
of  her  rights  to  the  Republic  of  Chile,  which  disavowed  the  acts  of 
the  privateer. 

In  1824  the  Vice  President  of  New  Granada  issued  a  decree  de- 
claring "  illegal  any  enterprise  for  the  purpose  of  colonizing  any 
point  on  the  Mosquito  Coast  between  Cape  Gracias  a  Dios  and  the 
Chagres  River." 

In  1825  the  legations  of  Colombia  to  England  and  to  Central 
America  protested  against  the  concession,  without  the  assent  of 
Colombia,  for  the  construction  of  a  canal  that  should  come  in  con- 
tact with  the  Colombian  Mosquito  Coast. 

In  1826  the  Congress  of  Colombia  passed  the  law,  No.  6a,  of  May  1, 
enacting  provisions  regarding  Mosquito  natives. 

In  1833  the  Government  of  New  Granada  issued  and  published  a 
circular  relative  to  commerce  on  the  Darien  and  Mosquito  Coasts. 

In  1838,  when  the  opening  of  an  interoceanic  canal  by  the  way 
of  the  San  Juan  River  and  Lake  Nicaragua  was  under  considera- 
tion, under  the  auspices  of  Hille  the  King  of  the  Netherlands,  the 
executive  power  made  the  pertinent  protest,  and  on  the  following 


252  LOMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE    PANAMA   CAXAL. 

year  th<  ninister  of  foreign  relations  of  New  Granada,  under  date 
of  January  7.  addressed  the  Government  of  Central  America  by 
sending  it  an  argumentative  protest,  in  which  he  declared  in  the 
name  of  the  Republic  that  "  if  the  intent  is  to  carry  out  the  project 
of  an  interoceanic  waterway  through  the  mouths  of  the  San  Juan, 
the  Government  of  New  Granada  will  oppose  it  and  avail  itself  of 
all  the  means  afforded  by  international  law." 

In  1843  the  legation  of  Colombia  at  London  laid  before  the  English 
Government  a  protest  denouncing  the  acts  of  the  war  frigates  Tweed 
and  Chdrybdis  on  the  Mosquito  Coast  as  an  infringement  on  the 
sovereign  rights  of  New  Granada  over  the  said  territory.  This 
attitude  was  maintained  by  the  New  Granadian  Government 
throughout  the  following  years,  during  which  the  minister  of 
Colombia  at  London  repeatedly  asserted  before  the  Government  of 
Great  Britain  the  rights  of  New  Granada  on  the  Mosquito  Coast. 

In  1890  the  territorial  concession  granted  by  the  Republic  of  Nica- 
ragua for  the  excavation  of  an  interoceanic  canal  called  forth  the 
note  of  the  ministry  of  foreign  relations  of  Colombia  to  that  of  the 
said  Republic,  in  which  it  is  declared  that  Colombia  holds  perfect 
titles  establishing  her  sovereign  rights  over  the  territory  known  as 
the  "Mosquito  Coast"  up  to  Cape  Gracias  a  Dios,  and  renewed  the 
protest  made  on  the  other  occasions  above  mentioned. 

In  May,  1894,  the  Colombian  Government  once  more  renewed  its 
protests  respecting  the  sovereignty  and  dominion  of  the  Mosquito 
territory,  and  proposed  to  the  Government  of  Nicaragua  that  a 
tribunal  of  arbitration  be  constituted  to  pass  upon  the  dispute  herein 
adverted  to,  but  that  Government  did  not  see  fit  to  assent  to  the 
proposition,  and  in  so  doing  Colombia  did  not  renounce  her  indis- 
putable rights  in  any  way. 

The  Government  of  Colombia,  therefore,  deems  it  necessary  to  put 
it  once  more  on  record,  through  me,  that  if  any  concession  in  owner- 
ship or  usufruct  be  made  in  the  Mosquito  territory  by  a  country  other 
than  Colombia  it  is  to  be  understood  as  being  granted  on  the  condi- 
tion that  the  rights  of  third  parties,  save  those  that  she  claims  to  be 
perfect,  over  that  region  shall  not  be  prejudiced  thereby. 
I  avail  myself,  etc., 

Jose  Vicente  Concha. 
Hon.  John  Hay, 

Secretory  of  State  of  the  United  States. 


No.  6.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  April  18,  1902. 
Sefior  Don  Jose  Vicente  Concha,  Etc. 

Sir  :  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  note  of 
the  8th  mstant,  making  "  protest  in  regard  to  the  projected  canal 
between  the  Atlantic  and  Pacific  Oceans  over  what  has  been  styled 
the  Nicaragua  route,  in  so  far  as  the  project  may  affect  the  sovereign 
rights  of  Colombia  in  the  event  of  its  including  territory  which  she 
holds  to  be  her  own." 

In  limiting  this  answer  to  the  acknowledgment  of  the  receipt  of 
your  note,  the  Government  of  the  United  States  reserves,  and  with- 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  253 

out  prejudice,  its  entire  freedom  to  make  such  answer  as  it  may  and 
proper  should  the  occasion  arise  for  it  to  do  so. 
Accept,  etc., 

John  Hay. 


No.  8.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  July  18,  1902. 
Senor  Don  Jose  Vicente  Concha,  Etc. 

Sir  :  I  beg  leave  to  refer  to  the  proposal  made  to  this  Government 
by  the  Eepublic  of  Colombia,  through  your  excellency,  on  March  31 
and  April  18, 1902  (with  the  accompanying  expository  letters),  agreed 
to  by  me  on  April  21  last  under  the  conditions  therein  stated,  and 
confirmed  by  your  further  favor  two  days  later;  also  to  the  law  of 
the  Congress  of  the  United  States  upon  this  subject,  approved  June 
28,  1902. 

You  are  aware,  I  am  quite  sure,  of  the  reasons  for  amendment  of 
the  proposed  treaty;  and  without  affecting  the  respective  engage- 
ments referred  to,  and  which  shall  continue  in  full  force  unless  we 
otherwise  agree,  I  submit  and  propose  various  amendments  to  the 
proposed  treaty,  which  I  have  embodied  in  the  complete  draft  here- 
with delivered. 

I  am  also  sure,  my  dear  sir,  that  you  fully  appreciate  the  necessity 
for  very  prompt  action. 


Accept,  etc., 


John  Hay. 


[Translation.] 

Legation  of  Colombia, 
Washington,  D.  0.,  July  19,  1902. 
Sir:  I  l\ave  the  honor  to  acknowledge  to  your  excellency  the  re- 
ceipt of  the  note  dated  yesterday,  which  is  accompanied  by  the  modi- 
fications that  the  Government  of  your  excellency  proposes  to  the 
memorandum  from  this  legation,  dated  April  18,  of  the  present  year. 
In  reply  to  the  said  communication,  I  have  the  honor  to  inform 
your  excellency  that  I  hastened  to  transmit  to  my  Government  the 
aforesaid  modifications  by  telegraph  and  by  means  of  a  special  dis- 
patch bearer,  to  request  special  instructions  regarding  them,  since 
they  affect  substantially  the  treaty  that  was  proposed  by  the  under- 
signed. 

As  soon  as  my  Government  transmits  the  instructions  requested, 
I  shall  have  the  honor  of  giving  to  your  excellency  the  formal  reply 
in  the  matter. 

I  repeat  to  your  excellency  my  expressions  of  high  and  distinguished 
consideration. 

Jose  Vicente  Concha. 
Hon.  John  Hay, 

Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States  of  America, 

Department  of  State. 

Department  of  State, 
Washington,  July  21, 1902. 
Seiior  Don  Jose  Vicente  Concha,  etc. 

My  Dear  Mr.  Minister  :  I  regret  to  say  that  the  clerk  in  copymg 
the  canal  treaty  draft  omitted,  by  clerical  error  in  the  typewritten 


254  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

copy  of  the  draft  which  Mr.  Hay  handed  to  you  on  the  18th  instant, 
the  first  paragraph  in  Article  XIII,  page  16.  This  omitted  para- 
graph reads  as  follows: 

The  United  States  shall  have  authority  to  protect  and  make  secure  the  canal, 
as  well  as  railways  and  other  auxiliary  works  and  dependencies,  and  to  pre- 
serve order  and  discipline  among  the  laborers  and  other  persons  who  may  con- 
gregate in  that  region,  and  to  make  and  enforce  such  police  and  sanitary  regu- 
lations as  it  may  deem  necessary  to  preserve  order  and  public  health  thereon, 
and  to  protect  navigation  and  commerce  through  and  over  said  canal,  railways, 
and  other  works  and  dependencies  from  interruption  or  damage. 

I  have  had  pages  16  and  17  of  the  draft  recopied  to  include  this 
omitted  paragraph. 

This  insertion  involves  no  addition  or  change  in  the  original  draft 
of  the  treaty,  the  paragraph  having  been  in  the  early  drafts  and 
omitted  from  this  one  only  by  inadvertence.  As  you  will  see,  it  is 
necessary  to  complete  the  article. 

I  have  to  request  that  you  substitute  the  inclosed  pages  16  and  17, 
which  contain  the  omitted  paragraph  as  above  explained,  for  the 
pages  16  and  17  now  attached  to  your  draft.  Except  for  the  addi- 
tion of  this  paragraph  the  pages  16  and  17  inclosed  herewith  for  at- 
tachment to  your  draft  are  identical  with  the  ones  for  which  they 
are  to  be  substituted. 


I  am,  etc., 


David  J.  Hill,  Acting  Secretary. 


[Translation.] 

Legation  of  Colombia, 
Washington,  D.  C,  September  22, 1902. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  of  addressing  your  excellency  with  the  ob- 
ject of  informing  you  that  there  was  received  last  night  at  this  lega- 
tion a  cablegram  from  the  governor  of  the  Department  of  Panama 
in  which  he  asks  that  rectifications  of  various  reports  published  in 
this  country  about  recent  events  in  that  Department  concerning  the 
naval  forces  of  the  United  States  and  American  corporations  hold- 
ing interests  therein  be  laid  before  the  Department  of  State  over 
which  you  preside. 

These  rectifications  may  be  summarized  as  follows : 

(a)  There  has  been  no  interruption  whatsoever  in  the  transit  over 
the  Panama  Railroad.  The  governor  of  the  department  directed 
that  trains  be  detained  for  a  few  minutes  on  entering  the  cities  of 
Panama  and  Colon  for  a  brief  inspection  and  to  prevent  a  repetition 
of  an  attack  by  rebel  forces  such  as  that  which  took  place  in  the 
city  of  Colon  last  year,  but  there  was  no  interruption  in  the  transit 
of  the  railroad,  caused  by  the  Colombian  authorities,  neither  for  a 
day  nor  for  an  hour. 

(b)  The  Government  of  Colombia  has  not  omitted  to  guarantee, 
in  an  effective  manner,  the  right  of  way  or  transit  across  the  Isthmus 
of  Panama,  under  the  obligation  placed  upon  it  by  section  1  of  article 
35  of  the  treaty  concluded  in  184G  between  the  Republic  of  New 
Granada  and  tlie  United  States  of  America,  nor  has  anything  hap- 
pened to  interfere  with  the  said  freedom  of  transit. 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTOKY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  255 

(c)  There  has  been  no  cnflict  in  Panama  between  individuals  or 
soldiers  of  the  Colombian  forces  with  marines  of  the  United  States, 
and  the  former  have  not  failed  to  obey  the  directions  issued  by  the 
governor  of  the  Department  on  the  subject  of  free  transit. 

To  these  rectifications  the  governor  adds  that  the  American  com- 
pany of  the  Panama  Railroad  refuses  to  comply  with  the  express 
obligation,  placed  upon  it  by  the  privilege  contract  of  August  16, 
1867  (art.  19),  to  convey  troops  of  the  Government,  as  such,  that 
is  to  say,  with  their  arms,  by  which,  besides  incurring  the  civil  re- 
sponsibilities appertaining  thereto,  the  said  company  throws  obsta- 
cles in  the  way  of  the  effective  discharge  of  Colombia's  duty  to 
maintain  the  free  transit  across  the  Isthmus,  since  in  case  of  threat- 
ened attack  its  forces  could  not  repel  it  without  arms. 

The  events  that  are  taking  place  at  Panama  have  been  reported  to 
the  ministry  of  foreign  relations  at  Bogota,  but  no  instructions 
have  as  yet  reached  this  legation,  and  I  confine  myself  to  transcrib- 
ing to  your  excellency  the  foregoing  remarks  without  advancing  any 
judgment  whatever  as  to  the  facts  and  reserving  for  my  Government 
the  faculty  of  making  at  any  time  on  the  question  such  declarations 
as  it  may  deem  necessary  or  expedient. 

Accept,  excellency,  the  assurances  of  my  most  distinguished  con- 
sideration. 

Jose  Vicente  Concha. 

Hon.  John  Hay, 

Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States, 

Department  of  State. 


Legation  of  Colombia, 
Washington,  October  26,  1902. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  address  your  excellency  for  the  purpose 
of  informing  you  that  on  the  24th  instant  I  received  from  my  Gov- 
ernment supplementary  and  full  instructions  to  close  the  negotiations 
for  the  construction  of  the  Panama  Canal  which  have  been  pro- 
gressing between  Colombia  and  the  United  States,  and  that  in  said 
document  are  comprised  all  the  points  to  which  your  excellency 
adverted  as  modifications  of  the  memorandum  presented  by  the  lega- 
tion to  the  Department  of  State  on  the  21st  of  April  last. 

The  instructions  to  which  I  refer  bear  date  of  Bogota,  September 
9,  1902,  before  the  action  was  taken  in  the  Department  of  Panama 
by  United  States  naval  officers  which  implies,  on  the  part  of  your  ex- 
cellency's Government,  a  new  interpretation  of  the  treaty  in  force  be- 
tween the  two  countries,  an  interpretation  concerning  which  I  am  not 
now  at  liberty  to  express  any  opinion,  for  the  reason  that  the  min- 
ister for  foreign  relations  at  Bogota  has  undertaken  to  discuss  it 
directly  himself,  as  your  excellency  is  aware;  but  which  would 
essentially  affect  the  convention  now  pending,  since  article  35  of  that 
treaty  is  incorporated  and  developed  therein. 

In  view  of  the  foregoing,  your  excellency  will  recognize  that  it  is 
just  now  impossible  for  me  to  act  in  pursuance  of  the  instructions 
received,  in  consequence  of  which  I  have  addressed  my  Government 
my  cable,  stating  the  circumstances,  to  the  end  that  it  may  decide 
upon  what  it  considers  most  proper. 


256  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE    PANAMA   CANAL. 

My  object  in  addressing  your  excellency  on  this  occasion  is  mainly 
to  place  on  record  the  good  will  and  frankness  of  intentions  of  my 
Government  in  the  pending  negotiations,  since,  surmounting  con- 
siderable difficulties  arising  from  the  disturbance  of  public  order  in 
the  country,  it  has  succeeded  in  sending  to  its  representative  instruc- 
tions to  conclude  the  treaty,  which  was  soon  to  be  submitted  to  the 
legislative  body,  and  although  an  unforeseen  delay  in  the  progress 
of  the  affair  now  arises,  my  Government  is  in  no  wise  responsible 
therefor. 

Accept,  your  excellency,  the  assurances  of  my  distinguished  con- 
sideration. 

Jose  Vicente  Concha. 

John  Hay, 

Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States. 


No.  9.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  October  28,  1902. 
Serior  Don  Jose  Vicente  Concha,  etc. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  receipt  of  your  communica- 
tion of  the  26th  of  October,  in  which  you  inform  me  that  on  the  24th 
instant,  you  received  fro  myour  Government  supplementary  and 
full  instructions  to  close  the  negotiations  for  the  construction  of  the 
Panama  Canal.  You  further  state  that  since  these  instructions  were 
dated,  action  has  been  taken  in  the  Department  of  Panama  by 
United  States  naval  officers,  which,  in  your  opinion,  implies  a  new 
interpretation  of  the  treaty  now  in  force  between  the  two  countries. 

Your  excellency  does  not  further  particularize  the  facts  referred 
to,  nor  the  interpretation  to  which  they  have  given  rise,  but  you 
inform  me  that,  in  view  of  the  foregoing,  it  is  impossible  for  you  now 
to  act  in  pursuance  of  the  instructions  received  by  you  without 
further  consultation  with  your  Government. 

I  do  not  recognize  that  there  has  been  any  action  on  the  part  of 
officers  of  the  United  States  Navy  in  the  Department  of  Panama  to 
which  your  Government  could  justly  take  exception,  and  I  can  assure 
you  that  no  new  interpretation  has  been  placed  upon  the  treaty  now 
in  force  between  our  respective  countries. 

I  admit  that  it  is  not  proper  for  me,  nor  have  I  any  inclination, 
to  make  any  observations  upon  your  excellency's  action  in  declining 
to  carry  out  the  instructions  which  you  inform  me  3^011  have  received 
from  your  Government.  I  venture,  however,  to  recall  to  your  ex- 
cellency the  law  passed  at  the  last  session  of  Congress,  which  makes 
it  the  duty  of  the  President  to  ascertain  whether  a  satisfactory 
treaty  can  be  made  with  Colombia  for  the  construction  of  a  canal 
across  the  Isthmus,  and,  in  case  this  is  impossible,  authorizes  him  to 
proceed  to  the  construction  of  such  a  canal  by  another  route. 

The  Congress  will  meet  in  the  course  of  a  few  weeks  and  it  will 
then  be  incumbent  upon  the  President  to  report  whether  it  is  prob- 
able that  he  will  be  able  to  negotiate  a  satisfactory  treaty  with  the 
Republic  of  Colombia.  I  need  not  point  out  to  your  excellency 
how  grave  a  responsibility  will  be  assumed  by  anyone  who.  by 
positive  or  negative  action,  may  make  it  necessary  for  this  Govern- 
ment to  resort  to  the  alternative  mentioned. 

I  beg.  sir.  that  you  will  accept,  etc. 

John  Hay. 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTOEY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  257 

Legation  of  Colombia, 
Washington,  November  11,  1902. 

Mr.  Secretary  :  In  the  audience  which  your  excellency  was  pleased 
to  grant  me  on  the  4th  instant,  I  had  the  honor  to  state,  verbally, 
that  my  Government  had  communicated  to  me,  by  cable,  the  sup- 
plementary instructions  referred  to  in  my  last  note  to  your  excellency, 
and  I  said  that,  according  to  those  instructions,  I  must  ask  of  the 
United  States  Government  that,  in  the  draft  of  a  treaty  for  the 
construction  of  the  Panama  Canal,  article  23  of  the  memorandum 
presented  by  the  legation  on  the  18th  of  April  last  might  be  textually 
maintained,  and  that  it  might  be  connected  with  articles  3  and  17 
of  the  same,  a  substantial  portion  of  article  35  of  the  existing  treaty 
of  1846-1848  between  Colombia  and  the  United  States  being  thus 
authentically  interpreted,  said  article  having  to  be  ratified  and  in- 
corporated in  the  new  convention. 

In  the  aforesaid  article  23,  which  your  excellency  expressly  ac- 
cepted with  the  rest  of  the  memorandum  in  the  note  which  you  were 
pleased  to  address  to  the  legation  on  the  21st  of  April  last,  it  appears 
that,  even  though  Colombia  grants  to  the  United  States  a  certain 
extension  of  authority  on  the  Isthmus  in  case  the  canal  treaty  shall 
become  operative,  she  has  not  for  that  reason  nor  could  she  re- 
■  nounce  certain  special  powers  inherent  in  the  exercise  of  the  sover- 
eignty of  the  Republic,  among  which  powers  a  very  prominent  place 
is  occupied  by  that  of  protecting  her  own  territory,  guaranteeing 
transit,  and  maintaining  or  reestablishing  order  and  peace,  conced- 
ing to  the  United  States  a  determinate  interposition  only  while 
Colombia  herself  shall  be,  owing  to  some  unforseen  event,  unable 
to  perform  those  duties;  but  of  course  without  ever  abdicating  the  * 
elementary  right  of  transporting  her  public  officers,  troops,  elements 
of  war,  etc.,  through  her  own  territory  without  any  limitation  what- 
ever, as  is  provided  by  article  17  of  the  same  memorandum,  and 
without  her  authorities  being  at  any  time  deprived  of  the  right  of 
discharging  their  legal  functions. 

The  fact  that  your  excellency  accepted,  in  the  aforesaid  official 
note,  on  the  21st  of  April,  the  articles  now  under  discussion,  clearly 
shows  that  the  scope  there  given  to  the  action  of  the  United  States 
is  the  correct  understanding  of  the  treaty  of  1846,  which  understand- 
ing my  Government  considers  it  necessary  to  determine  in  a  solemn 
manner,  preserving  and  ratifying  it  for  the  future.  The  article 
proposed  by  your  excellency  as  a  substitute  for  the  one  aforesaid 
might  cause  Colombia  to  be,  in  a  certain  manner,  incapacitated  from 
exercising,  without  control,  the  power  of  maintaining  order  in  her 
territory,  or  might  give  rise  to  contradictions  or  discussions  which 
it  is  very  desirable  to  avoid. 

As  the  difference  in  question  has  reference  to  a  highly  important 
point  of  the  treaty  to  be  concluded,  I  had  the  honor  to  call  your  ex- 
cellency's attention,  as  I  noAv  again  do,  to  the  necessity  of  a*  definite 
reply,  beforehand,  on  this  subject,  with  a  view  to  expediting  the  ex- 
amination of  other  secondary  points.  Your  excellency  was  pleased 
to  inform  me  that  the  modification  of  article  23.  which  was  pro- 
posed in  your  note  of  July  18,  was  due  to  the  initiative  of  certain 
Senators  who  had  supported  the  project  of  the  Panama  Canal,  and 
who  thought  that  the  new  wording  would  more  readily  secure  the 

42112— S.  Doc.  474,  63-2 17 


258  DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

United  States  Senate's  approval  of  the  projected  treaty;  your  ex- 
cellency stated  that  you  could  not  give  a  definite  answer,  as  requested 
by  me,"  without  previously  consulting  the  President  of  the  United 
States,  who  was  absent  from  the  Capital,  but  that  when  you  should 
have  consulted  that  officer  you  would  make  a  suitable  reply. 

I  have  desired  to  place  my  request  to  your  excellency  on  record, 
in  writing,  in  order  that  its  terms  may  appear  with  greater  clearness, 
and  I  hope  that  your  excellency  will  be  pleased  to  communicate  the 
decision  of  your  Government  to  me  whensoever  you  may  think  proper 
to  do  so. 

I  reiterate  to  your  excellency  the  assurances  of  my  most  distin- 
guished consideration. 

Jose  Vicente  Concha. 

His  Excellency  John  Hay, 

Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States. 


[Translation.] 

Personal.]  Legation   or   Colombia, 

Washington,  D.  G .,  November  11,  1902. 

Mr.  Secretary  :  In  compliance  with  the  wish  your  excellency  was 
pleased  to  express  in  our  conference  of  Friday  last,  I  transmit  to 
your  excellency  an  unofficial  memorandum  embodying  the  desiderata 
that  I  shall  formulate  at  the  proper  time  in  the  matter  of  the  canal. 

In  a  separate  and  official  note,  I  state  in  writing  the  request  I 
alreadv  presented  orally  to  your  excellency  in  our  conference  of 
the  4th. 

I  cordially  subscribe  myself  your  excellency's  obedient  servant, 

Jose  Vicente  Concha. 

To  His  Excellency  Mr.  John  Hay,  etc. 


[Translation.] 

[Confidential.] 

Note  of  the  general  remarks  that  the  minister  of  Colombia  proposes 
to  lay  before  the  Department  of  State  touching  the  amendments 
suggested  by  the  department  on  the  18th  of  July  to  the  memoran- 
dum of  April  18,  when  the  point  presented  in  the  official  note  of 
this  day  shall  have  been  decided. 

Article  I.1 

(a)  It  will  be  asked  that  the  condition  providing  for  the  restitu- 
tion to  the  Republic  of  all  public  lands  granted  to  the  canal  and  rail- 
road companies  not  within  the  zone  the  use  of  which  is  conceded  to 
the  United  States  be  retained  in  this  article. 

(b)  This  same  article  shall  clearly  state  that  the  permission  ac- 
corded by  Colombia  to  the  canal  and  railway  companies  to  transfer 

1  The  articles   are  numbered  according  to   the  memorandum   of  April   18. 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  259 

their  rights  to  the  United  States  shall  be  regulated  by  the  previous 
special  arrangement  entered  into  by  Colombia  with  the  said  com- 
panies, and  for  which  they  have  been  notified  that  they  are  to  appoint 
an  attorney  at  Bogota. 

Article  II. 

'  The  introduction  of  the  phrase  "  in  perpetuity,"  in  this  article 
could  not  be  accepted  without  effecting  a  complete  change  of  the 
nature  of  the  unsufruct  contract  to  be  signed,  which  would  make  it 
necessary  to  amend  the  Constitution  of  Colombia. 

It  shall  be  clearly  stated  in  this  article  that  the  exclusive  right  of 
the  United  States  to  protect  the  canal  is  in  relation  to  other  countries 
and  not  to  Colombia,  according  to  the  provision  of  Article  XXIII.  / 

Article  III. 

Same  remark  regarding  perpetuity  as  is  made  in  the  foregoing 
article.  The  Government  will  ask  that  this  article  remain  worded  as 
it  is  in  the  original  memorandum. 

Article  VII. 

The  right  to  navigate  the  Chagres  and  to  use  other  waters  and 
property  of  Colombia  in  the  Department  of  Panama,  as  conceded  to 
the  United  States,  shall  be  qualified  in  the  manner  set  forth  in  the 
original  memorandum,  but  this  shall  not  stand  in  the  way  of  the  con- 
cession being  extended  to  the  use  of  stones,  sand,  earth,  etc. 

Article  VIII. 

This  article  shall  guarantee  the  rights  acquired  by  third  parties  in 
regard  to  lighthouses  at  Colon  and  Panama.  If  it  should  become 
necessary  to  abolish  the  dues,  the  consequent  indemnities  shall  be  paid 
by  the  United  States. 

Article  XXV. 

The  discussion  of  this  article  shall  be  reserved  until  after  the  re- 
mainder of  the  treaty  shall  have  been  agreed  to;  but,  in  the  mean- 
while, the  Government  of  Colombia  will  claim  that  to  an  increase  of 
the  concessions  stipulated  in  the  memorandum  of  April  18  shall  cor- 
respond an  equitable  increase  of  the  indemnity  paid  for  their  use  in 
the  first  14  years,  and  that  the  sum  paid  for  the  same  right  in  the 
years  following  the  fourteenth  shall  not  be  less  than  that  received  for 
each  one  of  the  first  14  years. 

Article  XXVI. 

The  text  of  the  original  memorandum  is  to  be  maintained  without 
prejudice  to  the  insertion  in  another  separate  article  of  that  which 
bears  the  same  number  among  the  amendments  offered  by  the  De- 
partment of  State. 


260  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

An  additional  article,  specifying  the  mode  of  settlement  of  any 
doubts  arising  in  regard  to  the  interpretation  of  the  treaty  will  like- 
wise be  necessary. 

A  few  details  relating  to  questions  of  form  will  be  pointed  out  at 
the  time  of  the  final  drafting  of  the  treaty. 

Washington,  D.  C.  November  11,  1902. 

Jose  Vicente  Concha. 


Personal.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  November  5,  1902. 
Sefior  Don  Jose  Vicente  Concha,  etc. 

Dear  Mr.  Minister:  I  have  the  pleasure  to  inform  you  that  a 
telegram  has  been  received  from  Rear  Admiral  Casey,  reporting 
that  Government  reenforcements  have  reached  Colon  from  Barran- 
quilla,  and  that  the  Colombian  troops  are  now  being  transported 
on  the  Panama  Railway  by  separate  special  trains  without  any 
marine  guard.  He  adds  that  no  insurgents  have  been  seen  on  the 
line  of  the  railway  for  the  past  two  days. 
I  am,  my  dear  Sehor  Concha. 
Very  cordially,  yours, 

John  Hay. 


No.  11.]  Department  or  State, 

Washington,  No-vemher  18.  1902. 
Sefior  Don  Jose  Vicente  Concha,  etc. 

Sir:  I  had  the  honor  to  receive  on  the  11th  instant  your  esteemed 
letter  and  memorandum  embodying  all  the  amendments  proposed 
by  your  Government  to  the  draft  treaty  which  I  had  the  pleasure 
of  handing  you  four  months  ago. 

It  is  so  imperative  to  expedite  a  conclusion  that  I  shall  at  once 
deal  with  each  of  the  amendments  now  for  the  first  time  presented 
by  your  excellency. 

Without  considering  at  this  time,  questions  relating  to  the  treaty 
of  1846  (if  any  such  questions  really  exist),  1  am  sensible  of  the 
paramount  fact  that  the  new  treaty  will  completely  and  satisfac- 
torily establish  all  the  relations  of  our  two  nations  to  this  great 
undertaking. 

The  President  has  anxiously  considered  whether  he  could  yield 
to  the  amendment  which  you  consider  so  important  to  your  country 
(the  substitution  of  former  Article  XXTIT  for  the  later  Article 
XXIII).  Desirous  of  manifesting  in  an  unmistakable  manner  the 
good  will  of  this  Nation  to  Colombia,  the  President  authorizes  me 
to  say  that  if  all  the  other  provisions  are  agreed  upon  to  the  sat- 
isfaction of  the  United  States,  he  will  consent  to  the  substitution  of 
Article  XXXIII  of  the  former  instrument  for  the  like  article  of 
July  18,  190:2,  but  otherwise  acquiescence  is  not  to  be  operative. 

Therefore  I  hand  you  herewith  a  memorandum  replying  in  de- 
tail to  your  several  proposed  amendments;  and  also  a  clean  copy  of 
the  treaty  prepared  in  conformity  with  such  memorandum  and  this 
note. 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY  OF   THE   PANAMA  CANAL.  261 

I  respectfully  beg  leave  to  suggest  that  your  Government  should 
not  longer  delay  to  signify  which  of  the  alternative  forms  of  Article 
XXV  it  elects  to  embody  in  the  treaty. 

Accept,  etc.. 

John  Hay. 

[Memorandum.     In  replv  to  the  amendments  proposed  by  the  minister  of  Colombia  on 
November  11,  1902,  to  the  draft  treaty  of  July  18,  1902.] 

(The  numbered  articles  relate  to  the  draft  of  July  18.  1902.) 

Article  I. 

(a)  It  has  been  ascertained  by  the  United  States  that  the  canal 
and  railroad  companies  own  or  are  in  possession  of  property  within 
Panama  or  Colon  or  the  ports  and  terminals  thereof  which  are  of 
large  value  and  are  a  part  of  the  railroad  and  canal  systems.  The 
amendment  now  proposed  by  Colombia  might  operate  to  transfer 
such  property  to  Colombia  instead  of  to  the  United  States. 

The  United  States  in  conceding  to  Colombia  the  enormous  land 
grants  covered  by  the  canal  concession  considers  that  it  has  reached, 
if  not  exceeded,  the  bounds  of  liberality  and  can  not  in  addition  turn 
over  the  properties  in  Panama  and  Colon. 

Moreover,  the  very  large  pecuniary  expenditure  which  Colombia 
has  insisted  (Art.  V)  that  the  United  States  shall  make  in  furnish- 
ing Panama  and  Colon  with  necessary  aqueduct  and  drainage  works 
will  be  warranted  only  by  its  ownership  in  said  cities  of  the  prop- 
erties in  question.  No  question  of  the  sovereignty  of  Colombia  is 
involved,  for  Article  XIX  expressly  covers  this  very  case. 

(b)  The  United  States  considers  this  suggestion  wholly  inadmis- 
sible. 


/ 


Article  II. 


Examination  of  the  constitution  of  Colombia  fails  to  disclose  any 
prohibition  against  the  alienation  of  national  property.  On  the  con- 
trary, article  76  (Sec.  IX)  confers  upon  Congress  the  power  to 
authorize  the  Government  "  to  alienate  national  property." 

Nevertheless,  in  deference  to  the  wishes  of  the  Colombian  Govern- 
ment, and  desiring  an  agreement  at  the  earliest  possible  day,  the 
United  States  will  accept  the  words  "  for  the  term  of  100  years,  re- 
newable at  the  sole  and  absolute  option  of  the  United  States  for 
periods  of  similar  duration  so  long  as  the  United  States  may  desire," 
in  place  of  the  words  "  in  perpetuity." 

With  the  broad  amendment  conceded  in  respect  of  Article  XXIII, 
no  further  change  in  this  article  is  considered  necessary  or  proper. 

Article  III. 

In  harmony  with  the  concession  made  in  respect  to  Article  II, 
strike  out  the  word  "  perpetual  "  and  insert  after  the  words  "  use  and 
control "  the  words  "  for  the  term  of  100  years,  renewable  at  the  sole 
and  absolute  option  of  the  United  States  for  periods  of  similar  dura- 
tion so  long  as  the  United  States  may  desire." 


262  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY  OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

The  remaining  proposed  amendments  would  have  the  effect  of 
limiting  and  hampering  the  United  States  in  the  construction  and 
operation  of  the  canal.  It  is  not  believed  that  Colombia  has  any 
purpose  so  inconsistent  with  the  successful  accomplishment  of  the 
undertaking.  It  has  been  found  that  the  provisions  of  this  article 
relating  to  the  physical  works  are  necessary  for  the  complete  and 
efficient  consummation  of  the  great  design. 

The  United  States,  therefore,  is  not  willing  to  make  any  other 
change  in  this  article. 

Article  VII. 

In  so  great  and  unique  an  engineering  problem  no  one  can  foresee 
precisely  in  what  manner  the  rivers,  streams,  etc.,  may  have  to  be 
controlled,  deflected,  impounded,  etc.;  the  form  proposed  by  the 
United  States  simply  makes  certain  that  all  necessary  adjuncts  com- 
prehended within  the  plans  for  the  canal  may  be  properly  executed. 
We  are  confident  that  Colombia  does  not  wish  to  limit  or  prevent  the 
proper  construction  of  the  canal.  The  proposal  to  substitute  the 
former  Article  VII  for  the  present  Article  VII  is  not  agreed  to. 

Article  VIII. 

This  fresh  basis  of  pecuniary  indemnity  comes  as  a  surprise  to  the 
United  States,  and  it  might  well  be  urged  that  it  be  borne  by  Co- 
lombia, or  at  least  in  equal  parts  between  the  nations.  However, 
animated  by  the  same  spirit  which  pervades  every  article  of  the 
treaty,  the  United  States  will  permit  these  privileges  to  come  under 
Article  XIV.    Therefore  we  add  to  Article  VIII  the  following  words : 

Any  concessions  or  privileges  granted  by  Colombia  for  the  operation  of  light- 
houses at  Colon  and  Panama  shall  be  subject  to  expropriation,  indemnification, 
and  payment  in  the  same  manner  as  is  provided  by  Article  XIV  in  respect  to 
the  property  therein  mentioned;  but  Colombia  shall  make  no  additional  grant 
of  any  such  privilege  nor  change  the  status  of  any  existing  concession. 

Article  XXV. 

As  no  amendment  is  proposed  to  this  article  it  is  not  necessary  to 
enter  into  a  discussion  of  this  subject,  but  it  is  respectfully  called  to 
mind  that  the  proposal  by  the  United  States  of  the  payment  of  the 
lump  sum  of  $7,000,000  has  no  relation  whatever  to  the  subject  of 
annuity  for  the  first  14  years.  It  is  self-evident  that  this  could  not 
be  so,  since  Colombia  has  already  collected  annuity  in  advance  for 
■over  9  of  these  very  14  years  through  the  issuance  by  the  rail- 
road company  of  its  subsidy  bonds.  It  is  also  manifest  that  during 
the  period  of  construction  and  early  operation  (say,  14  years),  as  the 
property  will  not  realize  material  revenue,  no  annual  payment  would 
be  warranted. 

Article  XXVI. 

If  it  is  proposed  to  restore  the  forfeiture  clause  of  Article  XXVI 
of  the  treaty  of  April  18.  1902,  the  United  States  can  not  accede 
thereto. 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA  CANAL.  263 

By  Article  XXIV  the  United  States  contracts  to  construct  and 
complete  the  canal,  and  it  is  respectfully  submitted  that  the  definite 
engagement  of  the  United  States  is  sufficient.  Moreover,  such  a  pro- 
vision would  be  in  conflict  with  the  law  of  June  28,  1902. 

Additional  Article. 

Neither  the  forms  of  July  18  or  April  18  endeavor  to  specify  the 
mode  of  settlement  of  any  doubts  arising  in  regard  to  the  interpre- 
tation of  the  treaty.  We  do  not  conceive  of  any  questions  which 
these  two  friendly  nations,  knit  by  50  years  of  uninterrupted  treaty 
ties,  will  not  be  able  to  adjust  happily  by  such  mode  as  may  be  sug- 
gested by  the  peculiarities  of  the  case  in  the  years  to  come.  Any 
method  which  we  might  now  attempt  to  define  would  probably  prove 
unfitted  to  the  future  case  and  embarrassing  to  both  parties. 

Department  of  State,  November  18,  1902. 


[Translation.] 

Colombian  Legation. 
Washington,  D.  C,  November  22, 1902} 

Mr.  Secretary  :  I  have  had  the  honor  to  receive  a  note,  under  date 
of  the  18th  instant,  in  which  you  are  pleased  to  acknowledge  the  re- 
ceipt of  my  official  communication  and  memorandum  with  official 
note  of  the  11th  ultimo.  At  the  same  time  I  have  received  the  memo- 
randum and  project  of  a  treaty  which  accompanied  your  aforesaid 
note. 

Before  responding  to  the  substantial  part  of  that  communication, 
I  permit  myself  to  state  to  you  that  no  delay  in  the  negotiations  is 
imputable  to  my  Government.  On  the  18th  of  April  I  had  the  honor 
to  present  to  the  Department  of  State  the  memorandum  containing 
the  basis  of  the  treaty.  The  Congress  of  the  United  States  found  it 
necessarv  to  discuss  for  several  months  the  law  giving  authority  to 
the  executive  government,  and  it  was  not  until  the  18th  of  July  that 
your  excellency  informed  me  of  your  draft  of  modifications.  It  was 
then  indispensable  that  the  Attorney  General  of  the  United  States 
should  examine  the  validity  of  the  title  of  the  canal  company,  for 
which  reason  several  more  months  were  needed,  but  on  the  same  day 
that  the  Attorney  General  of  the  United  States  presented  his  report 
to  the  Government  I  had  the  honor  to  communicate  to  your  excellency 
that  the  instructions  to  forward  the  negotiations  were  in  my  posses- 
sion, and  that  I  only  awaited  a  supplemental  order  from  my  Govern- 
ment by  telegraph  to  proceed  therewith. 

Jose  Vicente  Concha. 

Hon.  John  Hay, 

Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

Any  action  on  my  part  while  the  Attorney  General  was  pursuing 
his  investigation  would  have  been  irregular  and  barren  of  results,  as 
is  obvious. 

1  This  was  the  last  communication  on  this  subject  from  Senor  Concha  before  he  left 
Washington. 


264  DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

I  ought,  moreover,  to  intimate  that  in  the  commentatory  memoran- 
dum, which  I  sent  to  your  excellency  separate  from  my  official  com- 
munication of  the  11th,  I  did  not  formulate  any  propositions  in  the 
name  of  my  Government,  but  in  order  to  satisfy  your  personal  desire 
I  suggested  in  the  memorandum  the  points  which  would  be  the  subject 
of  objection  in  case  the  main  point  were  favorably  resolved  after  pre- 
liminary discussion  by  me  in  accordance  with  the  orders  of  my  Gov- 
ernment. It  is  thus  seen  that  my  memorandum  was  presented  with- 
out the  necessary  arguments,  inasmuch  as  it  was  not  presented  for 
immediate  discussion.  Moreover,  in  the  last  part  of  my  memorandum 
it  was  expressly  intimated  that  it  did  not  contain  all  the  objections 
which  the  Government  of  Colombia  would  make  to  the  amendment 
proposed  by  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  and  that  when  the 
time  came  for  discussing  the  business  as  a  whole  the  remaining  objec- 
tions would  be  presented. 

As  you  are  pleased  to  say,  the  wish  to  hasten  the  negotiations  neces- 
sitates the  simultaneous  treatment  of  all  the  questions  without  sep- 
arating from  the  rest  the  question  relative  to  Article  XXIII,  which, 
on  the  contrary,  is  connected  with  the  others  in  the  note  which  I  have 
the  honor  to  acknowledge. 

In  order  therefore  to  conform  to  the  desires  expressed  by  you  and 
to  show  anew  the  purpose  of  Colombia  to  facilitate  so  far  as  might 
be  in  its  power  the  termination  of  the  negotiations,  I  accept  the 
method  adopted  by  you,  although  it  is  not  the  same  as  that  which  I 
had  the  honor  to  propose. 

The  condition  of  retaining  in  the  proposed  treaty  the  twenty- 
third  article  in  the  form  in  which  it  was  drawn  up  in  the  memoran- 
dum of  the  18th  of  April  has  been  characterized  in  the  written  in- 
structions which  I  have  received  from  my  Government  as  a  per- 
emptory one,  and  consequently  it  is  not  permissible  to  me  to  subordi- 
nate it  to  other  conditions,  so  long  as  my  principal  shall  not  revoke 
or  modify  in  some  express  manner  the  orders  which  it  has  given 
to  me. 

In  this  regard  it  may  be  proper  to  observe  that  the  Government  of 
Colombia  has  introduced  no  innovation  in  the  matter,  nor  has  asked 
anything  which  had  not  been  previously  accepted  by  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  United  States,  as  appears  from  the  note  which  you  did 
me  the  honor  to  address  me  on  the  18th  of  April  last,  as  well  as  in 
the  later  not  of  the  18th  of  July,  in  which  you  were  pleased  to  say 
that  the  modifications  proposed  on  this  latter  date  do  not  affect  the 
engagements  contracted  by  the  acceptance  of  the  unofficial  memoran- 
dum "  which  continues  in  all  its  force  until  some  other  agreement 
be  reached."  The  assent  of  the  President  of  the  United  States  to 
the  incorporation  of  the  original  Article  XXIII  in  the  treaty  draft 
can  not,  perhaps,  be  exactly  called  a  concession  which  puts  Colombia 
in  the  position  of  making  in  equitv  other  concessions  requested  bv  the 
United  States. 

Neither  is  it  out  of  place  to  recall  in  this  respect  that  in  the  con- 
ference, which  I  had  the  honor  to  hold  with  you  on  the  4th  of  the 
present  month,  you  were  pleased  to  state  to  me  that  the  modification 
of  the  twenty-third  article,  which  was  proposed  among  the  amend- 
ments of  the  18th  of  July,  had  not  arisen  upon  the  sole  initiative  of 
the  executive  governments,  since  it  was  judged  indispensable  at  the 
suggestion  of  several  Members  of  the  Senate  of  the  United  States, 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  265 

who  believed  it  to  be  opportune;  but  since  then  I  had  the  honor  to 
state  to  you  that  it  was  for  Colombia  a  capital  point,  since,  taken  in 
connection  with  the  provisions  of  Articles  IV  and  XVII,  its  effect 
was  to  enunciate  and  affirm  the  rights  of  sovereignty  of  the  Republic 
and  questions  of  the  guarantee  and  freedom  of  transit  in  conformity 
with  the  thirty-fifth  article  of  the  existing  treaty  of  1846-1848,  which 
is  textually  incorporated  in  the  convention  about  to  be  concluded. 
Whatever  be  the  importance  of  this  explanation,  it  suffices  to  show 
that,  even  although  the  cordial  relations  between  Colombia  and  the 
United  States  at  different  times  and  for  different  motives  have  not 
been  interrupted  or  embarrassed  for  more  than  50  years  of  the  exist- 
ence of  the  treaty,  doubts  and  controversies  have  arisen  which, 
although  they  have  terminated  by  being  settled  or  forgotten,  it  would 
still  be  very  desirable  that  they  should  not  arise  in  the  future  when 
we  aspire  to  draw  still  closer  the  existing  relations  between  the  two 
Republics  upon  the  footing  of  perfect  equality  to  which  international 
law  and  their  own  traditions  entitle  them. 

In  a  memorandum  attached  to  this  note  I  answer  your  excellencies 
memorandum  to  which  I  have  referred  at  the  beginning  of  this  note, 
and  I  set  forth  the  reasons  upon  which  my  Government  rests  for 
adhering  to  its  original  position  in  the  substantial  parts  of  the  mem- 
orandum of  the  18th  of  April  of  this  year  as  the  bases  of  the  treaty. 

I  have,  moreover,  transmitted  by  cable  to  my  Government  a  sum- 
mary of  your  communication  and  memorandum,  in  order  that  it  may 
definitely  decide  upon  what  it  deems  to  be  most  appropriate. 

I  beg  your  excellency  to  accept  the  assurances  of  my  highest  and 
most  distinguished  consideration. 

Jose  Vicente  Concha. 

[Memorandum  in  reply  to  the  memorandum  of  the  18th  of  November  of  his  excellency 
the  Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States.] 

A. 

(a)  The  condition  that  there  be  returned  to  Colombia  all  the  pub- 
lic lands  granted  to  the  railway  and  canal  companies  which  may 
not  be  within  the  zone  of  the  concession  made  to  the  United  States, 
is  in  accordance  with  the  original  intent  and  text  of  the  memoran- 
dum of  the  18th  of  April.  The  undersigned  is  not  unaware  that 
those  properties  may  have  a  considerable  value,  but  it  must  be  kept 
in  view,  on  the  one  hand,  that  the  Government  of  Colombia  has  not 
interfered  and  will  not  interfere  in  any  form  whatever  in  the  stipu- 
lation of  the  price  which  the  United  States  are  to  pay  to  the  afore- 
said companies  for  the  concession  of  their  rights;  and,  on  the  other 
hand,  that  all  those  properties  of  which  those  companies  now  have 
the  usufruct  are  to  be  restored  to  the  Republic  at  the  expiration  of 
their  respective  concessions.  (Seventh  condition  of  Article  I  of  the 
contract  for  the  construction  of  the  canal  of  May  18,  1878;  Article 
XVII  of  the  contract  for  the  railway  of  the  17th  of  April,  1850; 
and  Article  XXIII  of  the  additional  contract  of  July  5,  1867,  con- 
cerning the  same  railway.)  The  time  during  which  the  companies 
are  to  have  the  usufruct  of  those  properties  being  thus  limited,  it  is 
clear  that  if  they  have  any  considerable  value  that  value  belongs  to 


266  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA  CANAL. 

Colombia,  and  there  is  no  reason  or  motive  for  paying  it  over  to  the 
companies  or  for  their  owner  to  cede  it  gratuitously.  Colombia  has 
already  exercised  an  act  of  exceptional  liberty  in  extending,  in  favor 
of  the  canal  company,  the  time  limit  for  the  construction  of  the 
work  which  has  had  the  sole  effect  of  allowing  to  the  company  the 
possibility  of  recovering  a  part  of  its  capital  which,  without  this  ex- 
tension of  time,  would  have  passed  in  several  months  to  Colombia. 

The  undersigned  does  not  insist  or  intimate  that  the  United  States 
shall  intervene  in  the  questions  which  have  to  be  discussed  between 
the  Government  of  Colombia  and  the  aforesaid  companies,  but  he 
does  indicate  that  there  are  such  questions  in  order  that  the  equity 
which  moves  the  request  of  Colombia  may  be  palpably  seen.  So 
that,  if  there  be  still  wanting  any  proof  of  the  liberality  of  Colombia 
in  her  grants  of  land,  it  would  be  sufficiently  shown  by  the  enlarge- 
ment of  the  zone  of  the  canal  from  200  meters  conceded  to  the  com- 
pany to  5,000  meters  which  is  offered  to  the  United  States. 

(b)  The  preceding  reasons  serve,  in  part,  likewise  to  show  the 
necessity  which  exists  that  the  Government  of  Colombia  should 
make  a  special  contract  with  the  companies  which  are  about  to  cede 
their  rights;  but  it  should  be  said  in  addition  that  the  sole  fact  of 
a  treaty  between  Colombia  and  the  United  States  can  not  have  the 
judicial  effect  of  determining  or  cancelling  the  bonds  of  right  which 
exist  between  the  Republic  of  Colombia  and  those  companies — bonds 
springing  from  perfect  contracts  which  can  not  be  dissolved  accord- 
ing to  the  principles  of  universal  jurisprudence,  because  one  of  the 
parties  may  conclude  a  compact  in  regard  to  the  same  matter  with  a 
third  party,  which  in  this  case  would  be  the  United  States.  So  that, 
as  the  United  States  are  under  the  necessity  of  making  a  contract  for 
acquiring  the  rights  of  the  said  companies,  and  as  such  negotiation 
could  not  be  included  in  the  treaty  which  is  to  be  concluded  between 
the  two  countries,  so  also  the  dissolution  of  the  obligations  between 
Colombia  and  the  two  companies  could  not  be  effected  by  the  treaty. 
Otherwise  the  result  would  be  that  Colombia  would  be  stripping  her- 
self of  all  her  rights  in  relation  to  these  corporations  or  depriving 
herself  of  the  means  of  making  those  rights  effective,  and  would 
still  leave  in  existence  her  obligations  toward  them.  The  mere  fact 
of  the  payment  of  the  privileged  shares  which  Colombia  possesses 
in  the  canal  company  would  not  be  a  guarantee  for  the  relinquish- 
ment of  a  special  contract,  the  more  so  as  in  the  modification  proposed 
by  the  Department  of  State  to  Article  I  of  the  April  memorandum 
it  is  expressly  said  that  the  United  States  contracts  no  obligation  in 
this  regard  ("  no  obligation  under  this  provision  is  imposed  upon  or 
assumed  by  the  United  States"). 

If  the  United  States  have  to  construct  aqueducts  in  Panama  and 
Colon,  these  being  cities  the  increase  of  whose  population  and  trade 
would  be  due  exclusively  to  the  canal,  it  is  the  United  States  who 
will  derive  great  benefit  from  that  fact  by  obtaining  sanitary  condi- 
tions favorable  for  their  employees  and  operatives,  who  will  sojourn 
there  in  great  number.  Even  supposing  that  this  stipulation  did  not 
exist  in  the  treaty — and  it  is  not  essential — the  United  States  would 
find  themselves  under  the  necessity  of  constructing  these  works. 

However  sincere  and  strong  may  be,  therefore,  the  desire  of  the 
Government  of  Colombia  to  smooth  away  the  difficulties  of  the  nego- 
tiation, it  could  not,  without  causing  irreparable  injury  to  the  interest 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL.  267 

of  the  Colombian  people,  withdraw  the  conditions  which  have  been 
set  forth  with  respect  to  Article  I. 

B. 

Seeing  that  the  United  States  accept  the  suppression  of  the  term 
"  in  perpetuity  "  in  Articles  II  and  III  of  the  project  of  a  treaty,  it  is 
not  necessary  to  discuss  this  point,  and  it  is  merely  proper  to  remark 
that  in  the  constitution  of  Colombia  "  territory.'"  is  not  synonymous 
with  "  national  property "  (bienes  nacionales) ,  as  is  shown  by 
Article  IV  of  that  constitution;  but  the  alienation  of  a  part  of  the 
territory  would  require  a  change  in  the  boundaries  of  the  nation,  and 
as  such  boundaries  are  fixed  in  Article  III  of  the  same  fundamental 
charter,  a  change  thereof  would  require  the  amendment  of  the  con- 
stitution itself. 


Article  III  of  the  original  memorandum  was  not  objected  to  by  the 
Government  of  the  United  States  when  it  was  presented,  nor  was  it 
said,  as  it  is  now  said,  that  it  would  "embarrass  or  limit  the  action 
of  the  United  States  in  the  construction  of  a  canal,"  a  point  which 
certainly  would  not  have  escaped  the  notice  of  the  Department  of 
State  at  that  time.  No  amendment  has  been  formulated  in  this  regard, 
as  was  said  in  the  memorandum  to  which  reply  is  made,  and  it  is  only 
asked  that  an  article  of  the  original  project  may  be  conserved  intact. 

Consequently  Colombia  is  not  disposed  to  make  any  change  in 
Article  III  of  the  memorandum  of  the  18th  of  April. 

The  same  is  said  with  respect  to  Article  VII.  since  the  same  reasons 
exist  therefor. 

D. 

Although  the  part  relative  to  lighthouses  is  stricken  out.  it  should 
be  stated  that,  when  the  memorandum  of  the  18th  of  April  was  pub- 
lished, a  certain  lighthouse  concessionary  in  the  department  of 
Panama  presented  to  the  Government  of  Colombia  a  memorial  (hereto 
annexed  in  copy)  in  reservation  of  his  rights.  Although  there  is  an 
article  of  the  treaty  in  which  indemnification  is  tacitly  comprised 
it  has  been  sought  to  make  the  matter  clear,  and  in  that  respect  also 
no  new  matter  is  introduced.  It  is  proper  to  note  that  by  suppressing 
lighthouse  dues  in  Panama,  Colombia  loses  a  relatively  important, 
revenue  for  its  treasury  and  that  it  would  not  have  been  equitable  if, 
in  renouncing  these  resources  for  the  future,  it  would  also  have  to  be 
burdened  with  the  payment  of  the  rights  of  the  concessionaries. 

E. 

The  memorandum  to  which  reply  is  now  made,  in  speaking  of  mat- 
ters concerned  with  Article  XXV  of  the  treaty  project,  states  that 
the  offer  of  payment  on  the  part  of  the  United  States  of  a  total  sum 
of  $7,000,000  "  has  no  connection  with  the  matter  of  an  annual  pay- 
ment during  the  first  14  years.'' 

The  textual  and  clear  terms  of  Article  XXV  of  the  memorandum 
of  the  18th  of  April  are  sufficient  to  answer  this  remark.    It  is  there 


268  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA   CANAL. 

clearly  stated,  after  much  insistence,  in  order  that  it  may  appear 
that  the  seven  millions  which  Colombia  is  to  receive  were  an  ad- 
vance payment,  an  advance  for  the  14  first  years  of  the  use  of  the 
zone,  and  of  the  other  concessions  which  the  United  States  were  to 
receive  from  the  Government  of  Colombia.  Before  the  termination 
of  these  14  years  an  accord  was  to  be  reached  conformably  to  the 
cited  article,  concerning  the  rate  of  the  further  annual  payments, 
and  to  that  end  were  mentioned  the  data  upon  which  the  estimates 
should  rest  beginning  with  the  amount  of  the  annual  payment  as 
calculated  for  the  first  period.  But  if,  as  to  this,  doubt  should  still 
exist  it  should  be  now  stated  with  due  precision  that  at  the  time  the 
former  minister  of  Colombia  in  Washington  began  the  discussion 
of  the  preliminaries  of  the  treaty  with  the  members  of  the  Isthmian 
Commission,  it  was  stated  clearly,  expressly,  and  insistently  that 
Colombia  would  ask  an  annual  payment  for  the  right  to  use  the  zone 
of  the  canal,  as  the  proprietor  thereof,  and  also  the  equitable  price 
of  the  other  concessions.  In  this  regard,  as  in  respect  to  the  rest  of 
the  treaty  draft,  the  conduct  of  Colombia  has  been  absolutely  frank 
from  the  beginning,  and  any  other  proceeding  would  have  been 
destitute  of  reasonable  motive. 

The  Government  of  the  United  States  has  thought  it  proper  to 
modify  the  text  of  Article  XXV  of  the  memorandum  which  it  ac- 
cepted in  it?  two  notes  of  the  18th  of  April  and  18th  of  July,  and 
has  proposed  to  Colombia  an  alternative  between  the  payment  of 
ten  millions  in  cash  and  $10,000  of  annual  rental,  or  an  initial  pay- 
ment of  $7,000,000  and  an  annual  discountable  revenue  of  $100,000. 
The  undersigned  minister  has  no  written  authority  of  his  Govern- 
ment to  accept  either  of  the  two  aforesaid  alternative  terms. 
/  If  the  indemnification  Avhich  is  to  be  given  to  Colombia  for  its 
vast  concessions  has  to  be  reduced  to  either  of  the  two  terms  of  the 
alternative  proposed  by  the  United  States,  the  result  would  be  that 
Colombia,  having  first  ceded  the  usufruct  and  afterwards  the  full 
ownership  of  the  Panama  Railway ;  having  ceded  to  the  United 
States  a  zone  for  the  canal  25  times  greater  than  that  which  the 
concessionary  compairy  now  enjoys:  having  renounced  the  expecta- 
tion that  the  constructed  canal  shall  become  in  99  years  the  property 
of  the  Republic:  having  abstained  from  asking  8  per  cent  of  the 
revenues  of  the  enterprise  as  stipulated  in  the  contract  with  the  com- 
pany: having  obligated  herself  to  suppress  in  a  considerable  extent 
of  territory  all  imposts  and  contributions  which  might  help  to  meet 
the  increasing  expenses  of  the  public  service;  having  given  the  free 
use  of  all  the  navigable  waters  and  many  public  lands  of  Panama — 
would  in  exchange  receive  only  in  the  first  period  of  100  years  a  sum 
which,  distributed  among  all  those  years,  would  not  amount  in  any 
one  year  to  the  half  even  of  the  sum  which  the  Republic  and  the 
Department  of  Panama  to-day  receive  from  the  rental  of  the  Panama 
Railway  alone.  / 

The  United  States  have  given  on  distinct  occasions  before  the 
world,  and  in  fact  to  other  Governments,  examples  of  high  and  noble 
equity.  So  that,  giving  a  little  consideration  to  the  real  proportions 
of  the  indemnity  which  is  offered  to  Colombia,  it  can  not  fail  to  be 
seen  that  this  offer  is  very  wide  of  what  such  equity  would  require. 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  269 

F. 

With  respect  to  Article  XXVI  of  the  original  memorandum,  the 
undersigned  has  no  authority  to  eliminate  it  from  the  text  of  the 

G. 

No  formal  proposal  has  been  made  concerning  the  terms  of  an 
article  in  which  shall  be  established  the  manner  of  settling  the  doubts 
or  difficulties  which  may  arise  in  the  application  of  the  treaty  in  case 
it  be  perfected,  but,  this  being  the  last  provision  of  the  compact,  its 
examination  may  be  postponed. 

Washington,  D.  C,  November  22,  1902. 

Jose  Vicente  Concha. 


Bogota,  August  27, 1902. 

His' Excellency  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations, 

Present : 

I,  Dionisio  Jimenez,  a  Colombian  citizen,  a  resident  of  the  city  of 
Cartegena  and  transiently  in  this  capital,  make  to  your  excellency, 
with  all  due  resj)ect,  the  following  statement: 

1.  That  I  am  the  holder  of  the  privilege  for  the  establishment  and 
exploitation  of  the  lighthouse  on  Isla  Grande,  situated  on  the  At- 
lantic coast  of  the  Department  of  Panama,  32  miles  from  the  port 
of  Colon,  which  lighthouse  has  been  in  use  for  more  than  seven 
years,  during  which  time  it  has  worked  with  absolute  regularity. 

2.  That  the  aforesaid  lighthouse  now  yields  to  the  national  treas- 
ury an  income  of  not  less  than  $0,000  per  annum,  b.y  reason  of  the 
share  of  the  said  treasury  in  that  enterprise,  which  will  become  the 
exclusive  property  of  the  Government  when  the  privilege  expires. 

3.  That  the  privilege,  which  I  acquired  by  purchase  (made  with 
the  approval  of  the  Government)  from  Don  Aureliano  Gonzalez  To- 
ledo, the  original  holder  of  the  concession,  gives  me  the  right  to 
collect  from  all  vessels  that  pass  by  said  lighthouse,  whencesoever 
they  may  come  and  whithersoever  they  may  be  going,  remuneration 
for  the  service  that  they  receive  from  said  lighthouse,  without  any 
exception  save  the  war  vessels  of  nations  that  are  friendly  to 
Colombia. 

4.  That  in  article  7  of  the  draft  of  a  treaty  with  the  Government  of 
the  United  States  of  America  for  the  construction  of  the  Panama  Canal, 
which  draft  was  prepared  by  Don  Carlos  Martinez  Silva  when  he  was 
in  charge  of  the  legation  of  Colombia  at  Washington,  there  is  offered 
to  vessels  about  to  pass  through  that  canal,  among  many  other  and 
various  concessions,  exemption  from  the  payment  of  light  dues. 
This  is  done  in  so  broad  a  manner  that  it  might  readily  be  believed 
that  the  exemption  offered  had  reference  to  all  lighthouses  on  the 
seacoast  of  the  Republic,  and  not  merely  to  that  in  the  port  of  Colon, 
which  is  the  only  one  to  which  that  act  of  disinterestedness  and  gen- 
erosity can  refer. 

5.  That  in  the  privilege  granted  to  the  Universal  Panama  Canal 
Co.,  which  it  is  proposed  to  transfer  to  the  American  Government, 
the  right  was  granted  to  that  company — 

to  establish  and  collect  for  passage  through  the  canal  and  tlio  ports  belonging 
to  it  lighthouse,  anchorage,  transit   dues.  etc. 


270  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

But  no  exemption  whatever  was  granted  to  vessels  going  to  the 
canal  for  the  services  that  they  should  receive  in  other  ports  or  from 
coast  lighthouses  not  belonging  to  the  Panama  Canal  Co. 

6.  That  as  the  point  now  under  discussion  was  left  obscure  when 
the  final  contract  was  concluded  between  the  Government  of  Colom- 
bia and  that  of  the  United  States,  erroneous  interpretations  might 
afterwards  occur  which  might  disturb  the  exercise  of  the  rights  that 
I  have  acquired  in  connection  with  the  concession  of  the  lighthouse 
on  Isla  Grande,  said  lighthouse  being  situated  32  miles  from  the  port 
of  Colon,  or  from  the  entrance  via  the  Atlantic  to  the  projected 
Panama  Canal,  in  which  enterprise  more  than  $50,000  have  been  in- 
vested, I  have  thought  proper,  without  further  delay,  to  address  your 
excellency  to  the  end  that  if  that  treaty  should  finally  be  collected 
[meaning  concluded],  you  may  be  pleased  to  consider  the  rights 
which  I  represent,  as  the  holder  of  the  concession  to  exploit  the  coast 
lighthouse  on  Isla  Grande,  and  to  protect  them  by  giving  it  to  be  un- 
derstood, with  all  clearness,  that  vessels  about  to  pass  through  the 
canal  are  to  be  exempt  from  the  light  dues  of  the  port  of  Colon,  but 
that,  in  accordance  with  the  established  schedule,  they  must  pay  for 
the  service  which  they  receive  from  the  lighthouse  on  Isla  Grande, 
which  is  the  point  of  orientation  of  all  vessels  passing  along  the 
coasts  of  the  Isthmus  of  Panama. 

7.  That  this  explanation  interests  the  Government  more  than  it 
does  the  undersigned,  who  is  simply  the  usufructuary  for  a  limited 
time  of  one-half  of  the  income  yielded  by  that  lighthouse,  whereas  the 
Government  is  not  only  the  usufructuary  of  the  other  half,  but  when 
the  privilege  expires  it  will  be  the  exclusive  owner  of  the  enterprise, 
and  consequently  of  the  entire  income  yielded  by  it. 

8.  That  if,  owing  to  any  unforeseen  circumstance,  or  to  any  cir- 
cumstance over  which  your  excellency  has  no  control,  the  rights  of 
the  enterprise  which  I  represent  shall  be  annulled,  I  now  enter  a 
formal  protest  on  account  of  the  damage  that  may  be  caused,  reserving 
the  right  to  claim  compensation  therefor  by  due  process  of  law  if 
the  case  shall  arise. 

I  earnestly  beg  your  excellency  to  be  pleased  to  order  the  receipt  of 
this  memorial  to  be  acknowledged. 
Mr.  Minister. 

Dionisio  Jimenez. 

[Republic  of  Colombia.     (L.  S.)     Ministry  of  Foreign  Relations.] 

Ministry  of  Foreign  Relations, 

Bogota,  September  2, 1902. 
The  foregoing  is  a  copy,  which  is  transmitted  with  a  communica- 
tion of  this  day's  date,  No.  7078.  to  the  honorable  legation  of  Colom- 
bia at  Washington. 

Francisco  Ruiz, 

Assistant  Secretary. 
A  true  copy. 

J.  V.  Concha, 
Minister  of  Colombia. 


APPENDIX. 


LIST  OF  PUBLIC  DOCUMENTS. 

1.  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty.     Signed  at  Washington  April  19,  1850.     Proclaimed 

July  5,  1850. 

2.  Hay-Herran  (Panama  Canal)  treaty.    Signed  at  Washington  on  January  22, 

1903.  Approved  by  the  United  States  Senate  March  17,  1903.  Never 
acted  upon  by  the  Colombian  Congress.      (57th  Cong.,  2d  sess.,  S.  Ex.  K.) 

3.  First  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty.     Signed  February  5,  1900.     Amended  by  the 

United  States  Senate  and  never  ratified.  (56th  Cong.,  1st  sess.,  S.  Doc. 
No.  160.) 

4.  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty.     Signed  at  Washington  November  18,  1901.     Pro- 

claimed February  22,  1902. 

5.  Hay-Bunau  Varilla  Convention  (Panama  Canal  treaty).     Signed  at  Wash- 

ington November  18,  1903.    Proclaimed  February  26,  1904. 

6.  Treaties  with  Panama  and  Colombia  relating  to  the  Panama  Canal.     Signed 

with  Panama  (Root-Arosemena)  January  9,  1909.  Signed  with  Colombia 
(Root-Cortes)  January  9,  1909.  Treaty  between  Panama  and  Colombia 
(Cortes-Arosemena).  Signed  January  9,  1909.  Consented  to  by  United 
States  Senate  and  by  Panamas  Congress.  Never  acted  upon  by  Colombian 
Congress.      (60th   Cong.,   2d  sess.,   confidential.    Ex.    N.) 

7.  President   Taft's  message.     August  19,   1912.     The  Panama   Canal.      (62d 

Cong..  2d  sess.,  H.  Doc.  914.) 

8.  Panama  Canal  act.     Approved  August  24,  1912.      (Public,  No.  337,  H.  R. 

21969.) 

9.  Memorandum  to  accompany  canal  act.     Signed  by  President  Taft  August 

24,  1912. 

10.  President's  proclamation  Panama  Canal  toll  rates.    November  13,  1912. 

11.  President's  message  giving  correspondence  relating  to  the  revolution  on  the 

Isthmus  of  Panama,  November  16,  1903. 

12.  Second  message  giving  further  correspondence  on  the  same  subject,  Novem- 

ber 27,  1903. 

13.  President's  message  giving  correspondence  between  the  United  States  and 

Colombia. 

14.  President's  message  giving  correspondence  showing  relations  between  the 

United  States,  Colombia,  and  Panama,  January  18,  1904. 

15.  Hay-Concha   protocol   and  correspondence  between   the  United    States  and 

Colombia. 

16.  President's  message  giving  correspondence  showing  relations  of  the  United 

States  with  Colombia  and  Panama.  December  8,  1908. 

271 


APPENDIX. 


No.  1. 
CLAYTON-BULWER  TREATY. 

CONVENTION  BETWEEN  THE'  UNITED  STATES  AND  GREAT  BRITAIN  FOR  FACILITATING 
AND  PROTECTING  THE  CONSTRUCTION  OF  A  SHIP  CANAL  BETWEEN  THE  ATLANTIC 
AND  PACIFIC  OCEANS,   AND  FOR  OTHER  PURPOSES. 

[Signed  at  Washington  April  19,  1850;  ratification  advised  by  the  Senate  May  22,  1850; 
ratified  by  the  President  May  23,  1850  ;  ratified  by  Great  Britain  June  11,  1850 ;  rati- 
fications exchanged  at  Washington  July  4,  1850;  proclaimed  July  5,  1850.] 

By  the  President  of  the  United  States  of  America. 

a  proclamation. 

Whereas  a  Convention  between  the  United  States  of  America  and 
Her  Britannic  Majesty,  for  facilitating  and  protecting  the  construc- 
tion of  a  ship  canal  between  the  Atlantic  and  Pacific  Oceans,  and 
for  other  purposes,  was  concluded  and  signed  at  Washington,  on 
the  nineteenth  day  of  April  last,  which  Convention  is,  word  for 
word,  as  follows : 

Convention  Between  the  United  States  of  America  and  Her 

Britannic  Majesty. 

The  United  States  of  America  and  Her  Britannic  Majesty,  being 
desirous  of  consolidating  the  relations  of  amity  which  so  happily 
subsist  between  them,  by  setting  forth  and  fixing  in  a  Convention 
their  views  and  intentions  with  reference  to  any  means  of  commu- 
nication by  Ship  Canal,  which  may  be  constructed  between  the 
Atlantic  and  Pacific  Oceans,  by  the  way  of  the  River  San  Juan  de 
Nicaragua  and  either  or  both  of  the  Lakes  of  Nicaragua  or  Mana- 
gua, to  any  port  or  place  on  the  Pacific  Ocean, — The  President  of 
the  United  States,  has  conferred  full  powers  on  John  M.  Clayton, 
Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States;  and  Her  Britannic  Majesty 
on  the  Right  Honourable  Sir  Henry  Lytton  Bulwer,  a  Member  of 
Her  Majesty's  Most  Honourable  Privy  Council,  Knight  Commander 
of  the  Most  Honourable  Order  of  the  Bath,  and  Envoy  Extraordi- 
nary and  Minister  Plenipotentiary  of  Her  Britannic  Majesty  to  the 
United  States,  for  the  aforesaid  purpose;  and  the  said  Plenipoten- 
tiaries having  exchanged  their  full  powers,  which  were  found  to  be 
in  proper  form,  have  agreed  to  the  following  articles. 

Article  I. 

The  Governments  of  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  hereby 
declare,  that  neither  the  one  nor  the  other  will  ever  obtain  or  main- 
tain for  itself  any  exclusive  control  over  the  said  Ship  Canal ;  agree- 
ing,   that    neither    will    ever    erect  or  maintain   any  fortifications 

272 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY  OF   THE  PANAMA  CANAL.  273 

commanding  the  same,  or  in  the  vicinity  thereof,  or  occupy,  or 
fortify,  or  colonize,  or  assume,  or  exercise  any  dominion  over 
Nicaragua,  Costa  Rica,  the  Mosquito  Coast,  or  any  part  of  Central 
America;  nor  will  either  make  use  of  any  protection  which  either 
affords  or  may  afford,  or  any  alliance  which  either  has  or  may  have. 
to  or  with  any  State  or  People  for  the  purpose  of  erecting  or  main- 
taining any  such  fortifications,  or  of  occupying,  fortifying,  or  colo- 
nizing Nicaragua,  Costa  Rica,  the  Mosquito  Coast  or  any  part  of 
Central  America,  or  of  assuming  or  exercising  dominion  over  the 
same;  nor  will  the  United  States  or  Great  Britain  take  advantage 
of  any  intimacy,  or  use  any  alliance,  connection  or  influence  that 
either  may  possess  with  any  State  or  Government  through  whose 
territory  the  said  Canal  may  pass,  for  the  purpose  of  acquiring  or 
holding,  directly  or  indirectly,  for  the  citizens  or  subjects  of  the 
one,  any  rights  or  advantages  in  regard  to  commerce  or  navigation 
through  the  said  Canal,  which  shall  not  be  offered  on  the  same  terms 
to  the  citizens  or  subjects  of  the  other. 

Article  II. 

Vessels  of  the  United  States  or  Great  Britain,  traversing  the  said 
Canal,  shall,  in  case  of  war  between  the  contracting  parties,  be 
exempted  from  blockade,  detention  or  capture,  by  either  of  the 
belligerents;  and  this  provision  shall  extend  to  such  a  distance  from 
the  two  ends  of  the  said  Canal,  as  may  hereafter  be  found  expedient 
to  establish. 

Article  III. 

In  order  to  secure  the  construction  of  the  said  Canal,  the  con- 
tracting parties  engage  that,  if  any  such  Canal  shall  be  undertaken 
upon  fair  and  equitable  terms  by  any  parties  having  the  authority 
of  the  local  Government  or  Governments,  through  whose  territory 
the  same  may  pass,  then  the  persons  employed  in  making  the  said 
Canal  and  their  property  used,  or  to  be  used,  for  that  object,  shall  be 
protected,  from  the  commencement  of  the  said  Canal  to  its  comple- 
tion, by  the  Governments  of  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain, 
from  unjust  detention,  confiscation,  seizure  or  any  violence  what- 
soever. 

Article  IV. 

The  contracting  parties  will  use  whatever  influence  they  respec- 
tively exercise,  with  any  State,  States  or  Governments  possessing. 
or  claiming  to  possess,  any  jurisdiction  or  right  over  the  territory 
which  the  said  Canal  shall  traverse,  or  which  shall  be  near  the 
waters  applicable  thereto;  in  order  to  induce  such  States,  or  Gov- 
ernments, to  facilitate  the  construction  of  the  said  Canal  by  every 
means  in  their  power :  and  furthermore,  the  United  States  and  Great 
Britain  agree  to  use  their  good  offices,  wherever  or  however  it  may 
be  most  expedient,  in  order  to  procure  the  establishment  of  two  free 
Ports, — one  at  each  end  of  the  said  Canal. 

Article  V. 

The  contracting  parties  further  engage  that,  when  the  said  Canal 
shall  have  been  completed,  they  will  protect  it  from  interruption, 

42112— S.  Doe.  474,  63-2 18 


274  DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

seizure  or  unjust  confiscation,  and  that  they  will  guarantee  the  neu- 
trality thereof,  so  that  the  said  Canal  may  forever  be  open  and  free, 
and  the  capital  invested  therein,  secure.  Nevertheless,  the  Gov- 
ernments of  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain,  in  according  their 
protection  to  the  construction  of  the  said  Canal,  and  guaranteeing 
its  neutrality  and  security  when  completed,  always  understand  that, 
this  protection  and  guarantee  are  granted  conditionally,  and  may 
be  withdrawn  by  both  Governments,  or  either  Government,  if*both 
Governments,  or  either  Government,  should  deem  that  the  persons, 
or  company,  undertaking  or  managing  the  same,  adopt  or  establish 
such  regulations  concerning  the  traffic  thereupon,  as  are  contrary 
to  the  spirit  and  intention  of  this  Convention, — either  by  making 
unfair  discriminations  in  favor  of  the  commerce  of  one  of  the  con- 
tracting parties  over  the  commerce  of  the  other,  or  «by  imposing 
oppressive  exactions  or  unreasonable  tolls  upon  passengers,  vessels, 
goods,  wares,  merchandise  or  other  articles.  Neither  party,  how- 
ever, shall  withdraw  the  aforesaid  protection  and  guarantee,  with- 
out first  giving  six  months  notice  to  the  other. 

Article  VI. 

The  contracting  parties  in  this  Convention  engage  to  invite  every 
State  with  which  both  or  either  have  friendly  intercourse,  to  enter 
into  stipulations  with  them  similar  to  those  which  they  have  entered 
into  with  each  other;  to  the  end,  that  all  other  States  may  share  in 
the  honor  and  advantage  of  having  contributed  to  a  work  of  such 
general  interest  and  importance  as  the  Canal  herein  contemplated. 
And  the  contracting  parties  likewise  agree  that,  each  shall  enter 
into  Treaty  stipulations  with  such  of  the  Central  American  States, 
as  they  may  deem  advisable,  for  the  purpose  of  more  effectually 
carrying  out  the  great  design  of  this  Convention,  namely, — that  of 
constructing  and  maintaining  the  said  Canal  as  a  ship-communication 
between  the  two  Oceans  for  the  benefit  of  mankind,  on  equal  termg 
to  all,  and  of  protecting  the  same;  and  they,  also,  agree  that,  the 
good  offices  of  either  shall  be  employed,  when  requested  by  the 
other,  in  aiding  and  assisting  the  negotiation  of  such  Treaty  stipu- 
lations; and,  should  any  differences  arise  as  to  right  or  property 
over  the  territory  through  which  the  said  Canal  shall  pass — between 
the  States  or  Governments  of  Central  America, — and  such  differences 
should,  in  any  way,  impede  or  obstruct  the  execution  of  the  said 
Canal,  the  Governments  of  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain 
will  use  their  good  offices  to  settle  such  differences  in  the  manner 
best  suited  to  promote  the  interests  of  the  said  Canal,  and  to 
strengthen  the  bonds  of  friendship  and  alliance  which  exist  between 
the  contracting  parties. 

Article  VII. 

It  being  desirable  that  no  time  should  be  unnecessarily  lost  in 
commencing  and  constructing  the  said  Canal,  the  Governments  of 
the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  determine  to  give  their  support 
and  encouragement  to  such  persons,  or  company,  as  may  first  offer 
to  commence  the  same  with  the  necessary  capital,  the  consent  of  the 
local  authorities,  and  on  such  principles  as  accord  with  the  spirit 
and  intention  of  this  Convention;  and  if  any  persons,  or  company, 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTOEY    OF    THE   PANAMA    CANAL.  275 

should  already  have,  with  any  State  through  which  the  proposed 
Ship-Canal  may  pass,  a  contract  for  the  construction  of  such  a 
Canal  as  that  specified  in  this  Convention. — to  the  stipulations  of 
which  contract  neither  of  the  contracting  parties  in  this  Convention 
have  any  just  cause  to  object, — and  the  said  persons,  or  company, 
shall,  moreover,  have  made  preparations  and  expended  time,  money 
and  trouble  on  the  faith  of  such  contract,  it  is  hereby  agreed,  that 
such  persons,  or  company,  shall  have  a  priority  of  claim  over  every 
other  person,  persons  or  company,  to  the  protection  of  the  Govern- 
ments of  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain,  and  be  allowed  a 
year,  from  the  date  of  the  exchange  of  the  ratifications  of  this  Con- 
vention, for  concluding  their  arrangements,  and  presenting  evidence 
of  sufficient  capital  subscribed  to  accomplish  the  contemplated 
undertaking;  it  being  understood,  that  if.  at  the  expiration  of  the 
aforesaid  period,  such  persons,  or  company,  be  not  able  to  com- 
mence and  carry  out  the  proposed  enterprise,  then  the  Governments 
of  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  shall  be  free  to  afford  their 
protection  to  any  other  persons,  or  company,  that  shall  be  prepared 
to  commence  and  proceed  with  the  construction  of  the  Canal  in 
question. 

Article  VIII. 

The  Governments  of  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  having 
not  only  desired  in  entering  into  this  Convention,  to  accomplish  a 
particular  object,  but.  also,  to  establish  a  general  principle,  they 
hereby  agree  to  extend  their  protection,  by  Treaty  stipulations,  to 
any  other  practicable  communications,  whether  by  Canal  or  rail- 
way, across  the  Isthmus  which  connects  North  and  South  America; 
and,  especially,  to  the  interoceanic  communications. — should  the 
same  prove  to  be  practicable,  whether  by  Canal  or  rail-way, — which 
are  now  proposed  to  be  established  by  the  way  of  Tehuantepec,  or 
Panama.  In  granting,  however,  their  joint  protection  to  any  such 
Canals,  or  rail-ways,  as  are  by  this  Article  specified,  it  is  always 
understood  by  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain,  that  the  parties 
constructing  or  owning  the  same,  shall  impose  no  other  charges  or 
conditions  of  traffic  thereupon,  than  the  aforesaid  Governments 
shall  approve  of,  as  just  and  equitable:  and.  that  the  same  Canals, 
or  rail-ways,  being  open  to  the  citizens  and  subjects  of  the  United 
States  and  Great  Britain  on  equal  terms,  shall,  also,  be  open  on  like 
terms  to  the  citizens  and  subjects  of  every  other  State  which  is  will- 
ing to  grant  thereto,  such  protection  as  the  United  States  and  Great 
Britain  engage  to  afford. 

Article  IX. 

The  ratifications  of  this  Convention  shall  be  exchanged  at  Wash- 
ington, within  six  months  from  this  day.  or  sooner,  if  possible. 

In  faith  whereof,  we.  the  respective  Plenipotentiaries,  have  signed 
this  Convention,  and  have  hereunto  affixed  our  seals. 

Done,  at  Washington,  the  nineteenth  day  of  April.  Anno  Domini, 
one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  fifty. 

John  M.  Clayton.  [l.  s.] 

Henry  Lytton  Bflwer.     [l.  s.] 


276  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

And  whereas  the  said  Convention  has  been  duly  ratified  on  both 
parts,  and  the  respective  ratifications  of  the  same  were  exchanged  at 
Washington  on  the  fourth  instant,  by  John  M.  Clayton,  Secretary  of 
State  of  the  United  States,  and  the  Right  Honorable  Sir  Henry 
Lytton  Bulwer,  Envoy  Extraordinary  and  Minister  Plenipotentiary 
of  Her  Britannic  Majesty,  on  the  part  of  their  respective  Govern- 
ments : 

Now,  therefore,  be  it  known  that  I,  Zachary  Taylor,  President  of 
the  United  States  of  America,  have  caused  the  said  Convention  to  be 
made  public,  to  the  end  that  the  same,  and  every  clause  and  article 
thereof,  may  be  observed  and  fulfilled  with  good  faith  by  the  United 
States  and  the  citizens  thereof. 

In  witness  whereof,  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand,  and  caused  the 
seal  of  the  United  States  to  be  affixed. 

Done  at  the  City  of  Washington,  this  fifth  day  of  July,  in  the 
year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  fifty,  and  of  the 
Independence  of  the  United  States  the  seventy-fifth. 

[l.  s.]  Z.  Taylor. 

By  the  President: 
J.  M.  Clayton — 

Secretary  of  State. 


No.  2. 
HAY-HERRAN  TREATY. 

[Senate  Executive  K.  Fifty-seventh  Congress,  second  session.] 

PANAMA  CANAL. 

MESSAGE  FROM  THE  PRESIDENT  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES,  TRANSMITTING 
A  CONVENTION  BETWEEN  THE  UNITED  STATES  AND  THE  REPUBLIC  OF 
COLOMBIA  FOR  THE  CONSTRUCTION  OF  A  SHIP  CANAL,  AND  SO  FORTH, 
TO  CONNECT  THE  WATERS  OF  THE  ATLANTIC  AND  PACIFIC  OCEANS, 
SIGNED  JANUARY  22,   1903. x 

January  23,  1903  :  Read ;  convention  read  the  first  time  and  referred  to  the  Committee 
on  Foreign  Relations,  and,  together  with  the  message,  ordered  to  be  printed  in  con- 
fidence for  the  use  of  the  Senate.     January  24,  1903 :  Injunction  of  secrecy  removed. 

To  the  Senate: 

I  transmit  herewith,  with  a  view  to  receiving  the  advice  and  consent 
of  the  Senate  to  its  ratification,  a  convention  between  the  United  States 
and  the  Republic  of  Colombia  for  the  construction  of  a  ship  canal, 
etc.,  to  connect  the  waters  of  the  Atlantic  and  Pacific  Oceans,  signed 
at  Washington  on  January  22,  1903. 

Theodore  Roosevelt. 

White  House,  January  23,  1903. 


The  President: 

The  undersigned,  Secretary  of  State,  has  the  honor  to  lay  before 
the  President  for  his  consideration  a  convention  between  the  United 
States  of  America  and  the  Republic  of  Colombia  for  the  construc- 
tion of  a  ship  canal,  etc.,  to  connect  the  waters  of  the  Atlantic  and 
Pacific  Oceans,  signed  by  the  respective  plenipotentiaries  of  the  two 
Governments  on  January  22,  1903. 

John  Hay. 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  January  23,  1903. 


The  United  States  of  America  and  the  Republic  of  Colombia, 
being  desirous  to  assure  the  construction  of  a  ship  canal  to  connect 
the  Atlantic  and  Pacific  Oceans  and  the  Congress  of  the  United 

1  Full  correspondence  regarding  Hay-Herran  treaty  of  1903  with  Colombia  is  printed 
in  President's  message  to  Congress  of  December  18.  1903,  and  also  in  Foreign  Rela- 
tions, 1903,  pp.  132  et  seq. 

277 


278  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL. 

States  of  America  having  passed  an  Act  approved  June  28,  1902, 
in  furtherance  of  that  object,  a  copy  of  which  is  hereunto  annexed, 
the  high  contracting  parties  have  resolved,  for  that  purpose,  to  con- 
clude a  Convention  and  have  accordingly  appointed  as  their  plenipo- 
tentiaries, 

The  President  of  the  United  States  of  America,  John  Hay,  Secre- 
tary of  State,  and 

The  President  of  the  Republic  of  Colombia,  Thomas  Herran, 
Charge  d'Affaires,  thereunto  specially  empowered  by  said  govern- 
ment, 

who,  after  communicating  to  each  other  their  respective  full  powers, 
found  in  good  and  due  form,  have  agreed  upon  and  concluded  the 
following  Articles: 

Article  I. 

The  Government  of  Colombia  authorizes  the  New  Panama  Canal 
Company  to  sell  and  transfer  to  the  United  States  its  rights,  privi- 
leges, properties,  and  concessions,  as  well  as  the  Panama  Railroad 
and  all  the  shares  or  part  of  the  shares  of  that  company;  but  the 
public  lands  situated  outside  of  the  zone  hereinafter  specified,  now 
corresponding  to  the  concessions  of  both  said  enterprises  shall  revert 
to  the  Republic  of  Colombia,  except  any  property  now  owned  by  or 
in  the  possession  of  the  said  companies  within  Panama  or  Colon,  or 
the  ports  and  terminals  thereof. 

But  it  is  understood  that  Colombia  reserves  all  its  rights  to  the  spe- 
cial shares  in  the  capital  of  the  New  Panama  Canal  Company  to  which 
reference  is  made  in  Article  IV  of  the  contract  of  December  10, 
1890,  which  shares  shall  be  paid  their  full  nominal  value  at  least; 
but  as  such  right  of  Colombia  exists  solely  in  its  character  of  stock- 
holder in  said  Company,  no  obligation  under  this  provision  is  im- 
posed upon  or  assumed  by  the  United  States. 

The  Railroad  Company  (and  the  United  States  as  owner  of  the 
enterprise)  shall  be  free  from  the  obligations  imposed  by  the  rail- 
road concession,  excepting  as  to  the  payment  at  maturity  by  the 
Railroad  Company  of  the  outstanding  bonds  issued  by  said  Railroad 
Company. 

Article  II. 

The  United  States  shall  have  the  exclusive  right  for  the  term  of 
one  hundred  years,  renewable  at  the  sole  and  absolute  option  of  the 
United  States,  for  periods  of  similar  duration  so  long  as  the  United 
States  may  desire,  to  excavate,  construct,  maintain,  operate,  control, 
and  protect  the  Maritime  Canal  with  or  without  locks  from  the  At- 
lantic to  the  Pacific  Ocean,  to  and  across  the  territory  of  Colombia, 
such  canal  to  be  of  sufficient  depth  and  capacity  for  vessels  of  the 
largest  tonnage  and  greatest  draft  now  engaged  in  commerce,  and 
such  as  may  be  reasonably  anticipated,  and  also  the  same  rights  for 
the  construction,  maintenance,  operation,  control,  and  protection  of 
the  Panama  Railroad  and  of  railway,  telegraph  and  telephone  lines, 
canals,  dikes,  dams  and  reservoirs,  and  such  other  auxiliary  works  as 
may  be  necessary  and  convenient  for  the  construction,  maintenance, 
protection  and  operation  of  the  canal  and  railroads.  / 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  279 

Article  III. 

'■  To  enable  the  United  States  to  exercise  the  rights  and  privileges 
granted  by  this  Treaty  the  Kepublic  of  Colombia  grants  to  that 
Government  the  use  and  control  for  the  term  of  one  hundred  years, 
renewable  at  the  sole  and  absolute  option  of  the  United  States,  for 
periods  of  similar  duration  so  long  as  the  United  States  may  desire, 
of  a  zone  of  territory  along  the  route  of  the  canal  to  be  constructed 
five  kilometers  in  width  on  either  side  thereof  measured  from  its 
center  line  including  therein  the  necessary  auxiliary  canals  not  ex- 
ceeding in  any  case  fifteen  miles  from  the  main  canal  and  other 
works,  together  with  ten  fathoms  of  water  in  the  Bay  of  Limon  in 
extension  of  the  canal,  and  at  least  three  marine  miles  from  mean  low 
water  mark  from  each  terminus  of  the  canal  into  the  Caribbean  Sea 
and  the  Pacific  Ocean  respectively./  So  far  as  necessary  for  the 
construction,  maintenance  and  operation  of  the  canal,  the  United 
States  shall  have  the  use  and  occupation  of  the  group  of  small  islands 
in  the  Bay  of  Panama  named  Perico,  Naos,  Culebra  and  Flamenco, 
but  the  same  shall  not  be  construed  as  being  within  the  zone  herein 
defined  or  governed  by  the  special  provisions  applicable  to  the  same. 

This  grant  shall  in  no  manner  invalidate  the  titles  or  rights  of 
private  land  holders  in  the  said  zone  of  territory,  nor  shall  it  interfere 
with  the  rights  of  way  over  the  public  roads  of  the  Department; 
provided,  however,  that  nothing  herein  contained  shall  operate  to 
diminish,  impair  or  restrict  the  rights  elsewhere  herein  granted  to  the 
United  States. 

This  grant  shall  not  include  the  cities  of  Panama  and  Colon,  ex- 
cept so  far  as  lands  and  other  property  therein  are  now  owned  by  or 
in  possession  of  the  said  Canal  Company  or  the  said  Railroad  Com- 
pany; but  all  the  stipulations  contained  in  Article  35  of  the  Treaty 
of  1846-48  between  the  contracting  parties  shall  continue  and  apply 
in  full  force  to  the  cities  of  Panama  and  Colon  and  to  the  accessory 
community  lands  and  other  property  within  the  said  zone,  and  the 
territory  thereon  shall  be  neutral  territory,  and  the  United  States 
shall  continue  to  guarantee  the  neutrality  thereof  and  the  sovereignty 
of  Colombia  thereover,  in  conformity  with  the  above  mentioned 
Article  35  of  said  Treaty. 

In  furtherance  of  this  last  provision  there  shall  be  created  a  Joint 
Commission  by  the  Governments  of  Colombia  and  the  United  States 
that  shall  establish  and  enforce  sanitary  and  police  regulations. 

Article  IV. 

The  rights  and  privileges  granted  to  the  United  States  by  the  terms 
of  this  convention  shall  not  affect  the  sovereignty  of  the  Republic  of 
Colombia  over  the  territory  within  whose  boundaries  such  rights  and 
privileges  are  to  be  exercised. 

The  United  States  freely  acknowledges  and  recognizes  this  sov- 
ereignty and  disavows  any  intention  to  impair  it  in  any  way  what- 
ever or  to  increase  its  territory  at  the  expense  of  Colombia  or  of  any 
of  the  sister  republics  in  Central  or  South  America,  but  on  the  con- 
trary, it  desires  to  strengthen  the  power  of  the  republics  on  this  con- 
tinent, and  to  promote,  develop  and  maintain  their  prosperity  and 
independence. 


280  DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA  CANAL. 

Article  V. 

The  Republic  of  Colombia  authorizes  the  United  States  to  con- 
struct and  maintain  at  each  entrance  and  terminus  of  the  proposed 
canal  a  port  for  vessels  using  the  same,  with  suitable  light  houses  and 
other  aids  to  navigation,  and  the  United  States  is  authorized  to  use 
and  occupy  within  the  limits  of  the  zone  fixed  by  this  convention, 
such  parts  of  the  coast  line  and  of  the  lands  and  islands  adjacent 
thereto  as  are  necessary  for  this  purpose,  including  the  construction 
and  maintenance  of  breakwaters,  dikes,  jetties,  embankments,  coaling 
stations,  docks  and  others  appropriate  works,  and  the  United  States 
undertakes  the  construction  and  maintenance  of  such  works  and  will 
bear  all  the  expense  thereof.  The  ports  when  established  are  de- 
clared free,  and  their  demarcations  shall  be  clearly  and  definitely 
defined. 

To  give  effect  to  this  Article,  the  United  States  will  give  special 
attention  and  care  to  the  maintenance  of  works  for  drainage,  sani- 
tary and  healthful  purposes  along  the  line  of  the  canal,  and  its 
dependencies,  in  order  to  prevent  the  invasion  of  epidemics  or  of 
securing  their  prompt  suppression  should  they  appear.  With  this 
end  in  view  the  United  States  will  organize  hospitals  along  the  line 
of  the  canal,  and  will  suitably  supply  or  cause  to  be  supplied  the 
towns  of  Panama  and  Colon  with  the  necessary  aqueducts  and  drain- 
age works,  in  order  to  prevent  their  becoming  centers  of  infection 
on  account  of  their  proximity  to  the  canal. 

The  Government  of  Colombia  will  secure  for  the  United  States 
or  its  nominees  the  lands  and  rights  that  may  be  required  in  the 
towns  of  Panama  and  Colon  to  effect  the  improvements  above  re- 
ferred to,  and  the  Government  of  the  United  States  or  its  nominees 
shall  be  authorized  to  impose  and  collect  equitable  water  rates,  dur- 
ing fifty  years  for  the  service  rendered ;  but  on  the  expiration  of  said 
term  the  use  of  the  water  shall  be  free  for  the  inhabitants  of  Panama 
and  Colon,  except  to  the  extent  that  may  be  necessary  for  the  opera- 
tion and  maintenance  of  said  water  system,  including  reservoirs, 
aqueducts,  hydrants,  supply  service,  drainage  and  other  works. 

Article  VI. 

The  Republic  of  Colombia  agrees  that  it  will  not  cede  or  lease  to 
any  foreign  Government  any  of  its  islands  or  harbors  within  or  ad- 
jacent to  the  Bay  of  Panama,  nor  on  the  Atlantic  Coast  of  Colombia, 
between  the  Atrato  River  and  the  western  boundary  of  the  Depart- 
ment of  Panama,  for  the  purpose  of  establishing  fortifications,  naval 
or  coaling  stations,  military  posts,  docks  or  other  works  that  might 
interfere  with  the  construction,  maintenance,  operation,  protection, 
safety,  and  free  use  of  the  canal  and  auxiliary  works.  In  order  to 
enable  Colombia  to  comply  with  this  stipulation,  the  Government  of 
the  United  States  agrees  to  give  Colombia  the  material  support  that 
may  be  required  in  order  to  prevent  the  occupation  of  said  islands 
and  ports,  guaranteeing  there  the  sovereignty,  independence  and  in- 
tegrity of  Colombia. 

Article  VII. 

The  Republic  of  Colombia  includes  in  the  foregoing  grant  the 
right  without  obstacle,  cost,  or  impediment,  to  such  control,  con- 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OP   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  281 

sumption  and  general  utilization  in  any  manner  found  necessary  by 
the  United  States  to  the  exercise  by  it  of  the  grants  to,  and  rights 
conferred  upon  it  by  this  Treaty,  the  waters  of  the  Chagres  River 
and  other  streams,  lakes  and  lagoons,  of  all  non-navigable  waters, 
natural  and  artificial,  and  also  to  navigate  all  rivers,  streams,  lakes 
and  other  navigable  water-ways,  within  the  jurisdiction  and  under 
the  domain  of  the  Republic  of  Colombia,  in  the  Department  of 
Panama,  within  or  without  said  zone,  as  may  be  necessary  or  de- 
sirable for  the  construction,  maintenance  and  operation  of  the  canal 
and  its  auxiliary  canals  and  other  works,  and  without  tolls  or  charges 
of  any  kind;  and  to  raise  and  lower  the  levels  of  the  waters,  and  to 
deflect  them,  and  to  impound  any  such  waters,  and  to  overflow  any 
lands  necessary  for  the  due  exercise  of  such  grants  and  rights  to  the 
United  States;  and  to  rectify,  construct  and  improve  the  navigation 
of  any  such  rivers,  streams,  lakes  and  lagoons  at  the  sole  cost  of  the 
United  States;  but  any  such  water-ways  so  made  by  the  United 
States  may  be  used  by  citizens  of  Colombia  free  of  tolls  or  other 
charges.  And  the  United  States  shall  have  the  right  to  use  without 
cost,  any  water,  stone,  clay,  earth  or  other  minerals  belonging  to 
Colombia  on  the  public  domain  that  may  be  needed  by  it. 

All  damages  caused  to  private  land  owners  by  inundation  or  by  the 
deviation  of  water  courses,  or  in  other  ways,  arising  out  of  the  con- 
struction or  operation  of  the  canal,  shall  in  each  case  be  appraised 
and  settled  by  a  joint  commission  appointed  by  the  Governments  of 
the  United  States  and  Colombia,  but  the  cost  of  the  indemnities 
so  agreed  upon  shall  be  borne  solely  by  the  United  States. 

Article  VIII. 

The  Government  of  Colombia  declares  free  for  all  time  the  ports 
at  either  entrance  of  the  Canal,  including  Panama  and  Colon  and 
the  waters  thereof  in  such  manner  that  there  shall  not  be  collected 
by  the  Government  of  Colombia  custom  house  tolls,  tonnage,  anchor- 
age, light-house,  wharf,  pilot,  or  quarantine  dues,  nor  any  other 
charges  or  taxes  of  any  kind  shall  be  levied  or  imposed  by  the  Gov- 
ernment of  Colombia  upon  any  vessel  using  or  passing  through  the 
Canal  or  belonging  to  or  employed  by  the  United  States,  directly  or 
indirectly,  in  connection  with  the  construction,  maintenance  and 
operation  of  the  main  work  or  its  auxiliaries,  or  upon  the  cargo, 
officers,  crew,  or  passengers  of  any  such  vessels ;  it  being  the  intent  of 
this  convention  that  all  vessels  and  their  cargoes,  crews,  and  passen- 
gers, shall  be  permitted  to  use  and  pass  through  the  Canal  and  the 
ports  leading  thereto,  subject  to  no  other  demands  or  impositions 
than  such  tolls  and  charges  as  may  be  imposed  by  the  United  States 
for  the  use  of  the  Canal  and  other  works.  It  being  understood  that 
such  tolls  and  charges  shall  be  governed  by  the  provisions  of  Article 
XVI. 

The  ports  leading  to  the  Canal,  including  Panama  and  Colon,  also 
shall  be  free  to  the  commerce  of  the  world,  and  no  duties  or  taxes 
shall  be  imposed,  except  upon  merchandise  destined  to  be  introduced 
for  the  consumption  of  the  rest  of  the  Republic  of  Colombia,  or  the 
Department  of  Panama,  and  upon  vessels  touching  at  the  ports  of 
Colon  and  Panama  and  which  do  not  cross  the  Canal. 

Though  the  said  ports  shall  be  free  and  open  to  all,  the  Govern- 
ment of  Colombia  may  establish  in  them  such  custom  houses  and 


282  DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

guards  as  Colombia  may  deem  necessary  to  collect  duties  on  impor- 
tations destined  to  other  portions  of  Colombia  and  to  prevent  con- 
traband trade.  The  United  States  shall  have  the  right  to  make  use 
of  the  ports  at  the  two  extremities  of  the  Canal  including  Panama 
and  Colon  as  places  of  anchorage,  in  order  to  make  repairs  for  load- 
ing, unloading,  depositing,  or  transshipping  cargoes  either  in  transit 
or  destined  for  the  service  of  the  Canal  and  other  works. 

Any  concessions  or  privileges  granted  by  Colombia  for  the  opera- 
tion of  light  houses  at  Colon  and  Panama  shall  be  subject  to  expro- 
priation, indemnification  and  payment  in  the  same  manner  as  is  pro- 
vided by  Article  XIV  in  respect  to  the  property  therein  mentioned ; 
but  Colombia  shall  make  no  additional  grant  of  any  such  privilege 
nor  change  the  status  of  any  existing  concession. 

Article  IX. 

There  shall  not  be  imposed  any  taxes,  national,  municipal,  depart- 
mental, or  of  any  other  class,  upon  the  canal,  the  vessels  that  may 
use  it,  tugs  and  other  vessels  employed  in  the  service  of  the  canal, 
the  railways  and  auxiliary  works,  store  houses,  work  shops,  offices, 
quarters  for  laborers,  factories  of  all  kinds,  warehouses,  wharves, 
machinery  and  other  works,  property,  and  effects  appertaining  to 
the  canal  or  railroad  or  that  may  be  necessary  for  the  service  of  the 
canal  or  railroad  and  their  dependencies,  whether  situated  within 
the  cities  of  Panama  and  Colon,  or  any  other  place  authorized  by 
the  provisions  of  this  convention. 

Nor  shall  there  be  imposed  contributions  or  charges  of  a  personal 
character  of  whatever  species  upon  officers,  employees,  laborers,  and 
other  individuals  in  the  service  of  the  canal  and  its  dependencies. 

Article  X. 

It  is  agreed  that  telegraph  and  telephone  lines,  when  established  for 
canal  purposes,  may  also,  under  suitable  regulations,  be  used  for 
public  and  private  business  in  connection  with  the  systems  of  Colom- 
bia and  the  other  American  Republics  and  with  the  lines  of  cable  com- 
panies authorized  to  enter  the  ports  and  territories  of  these  Republics ; 
but  the  official  dispatches  of  the  Government  of  Colombia  and  the 
authorities  of  the  Department  of  Panama  shall  not  pay  for  such 
service  higher  tolls  than  those  required  from  the  officials  in  the  service 
of  the  United  States. 

Article  XI. 

The  Government  of  Colombia  shall  permit  the  immigration  and 
free  access  to  the  lands  and  workshops  of  the  canal  and  its  dependen- 
cies of  all  employees  and  workmen  of  whatever  nationality  under 
contract  to  work  upon  or  seeking  employment  or  in  any  wise  con- 
nected with  the  said  canal  and  its  dependencies,  with  their  respective 
families,  and  all  such  persons  shall  be  free  and  exempt  from  the  mili- 
tary service  of  the  Republic  of  Colombia. 

Article  XII. 

The  United  States  may  import  at  any  time  into  the  said  zone,  free 
of  customs  duties,  imposts,  taxes,  or  other  charges,  and  without  any 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE    PANAMA   CANAL.  283 

restriction,  any  and  all  vessels,  dredges,  engines,  cars,  machinery, 
tools,  explosives,  materials,  supplies,  and  other  articles  necessary  and 
convenient  in  the  construction,  maintenance  and  operation  of  the 
canal  and  auxiliary  works,  also  all  provisions,  medicines,  clothing, 
supplies  and  other  things  necessary  and  convenient  for  the  officers, 
employees,  workmen  and  laborers  in  the  service  and  employ  of  the 
United  States  and  for  their  families.  If  any  such  articles  are  dis- 
posed of  for  use  without  the  zone  excepting  Panama  and  Colon  and 
within  the  territory  of  the  Republic,  they  shall  be  subject  to  the  same 
import  or  other  duties  as  like  articles  under  the  laws  of  Colombia  or 
the  ordinances  of  the  Department  of  Panama. 

Article  XIII. 

The  United  States  shall  have  authority  to  protect  and  make  secure 
the  canal,  as  well  as  railways  and  other  auxiliary  works  and  de- 
pendencies, and  to  preserve  order  and  discipline  among  the  laborers 
and  other  persons  who  may  congregate  in  that  region,  and  to  make 
and  enforce  such  police  and  sanitary  regulations  as  it  may  deem 
necessary  to  preserve  order  and  public  health  thereon,  and  to  protect 
navigation  and  commerce  through  and  over  said  canal,  railways  and 
other  works  and  dependencies  from  interruption  or  damage. 

I.  The  Republic  of  Colombia  may  establish  judicial  tribunals 
within  said  zone,  for  the  determination,  according  to  its  laws  and 
judicial  procedure,  of  certain  controversies  hereinafter  mentioned. 

Such  judicial  tribunal  or  tribunals  so  established  by  the  Republic 
of  Colombia  shall  have  exclusive  jurisdiction  in  said  zone  of  all  con- 
troversies between  citizens  of  the  Republic  of  Colombia,  or  between 
citizens  of  the  Republic  of  Colombia  and  citizens  of  any  foreign 
nation  other  than  the  United  States. 

II.  Subject  to  the  general  sovereignty  of  Colombia  over  said  zone, 
the  United  States  may  establish  judicial  tribunals  thereon,  which 
shall  have  jurisdiction  of  certain  controversies  hereinafter  mentioned 
to  be  determined  according  to  the  laws  and  judicial  procedure  of  the 
United  States. 

Such  judicial  tribunal  or  tribunals  so  established  by  the  United 
States  shall  have  exclusive  jurisdiction  in  said  zone  of  all  contro- 
versies between  citizens  of  the  United  States,  and  between  citizens  of 
the  United  States  and  citizens  of  any  foreign  nation  other  than  the 
Republic  of  Colombia;  and  of  all  controversies  in  any  wise  growing 
out  of  or  relating  to  the  construction,  maintenance  or  operation  of 
the  canal,  railway  and  other  properties  and  works. 

III.  The  United  States  and  Colombia  engage  jointly  to  establish 
and  maintain  upon  said  zone,  judicial  tribunals  having  civil,  criminal 
and  admiralty  jurisdiction,  and  to  be  composed  of  jurists  appointed 
by  the -Governments  of  the  United  States  and  Colombia  in  a  manner 
hereafter  to  be  agreed  upon  between  said  Governments,  and  wmich 
tribunals  shall  have  jurisdiction  of  certain  controversies  hereinafter 
mentioned,  and  of  all  crimes,  felonies  and  misdemeanors  committed 
within  said  zone,  and  of  all  cases  arising  in  admiralty,  according  to 
such  laws  and  procedure  as  shall  be  hereafter  agreed  upon  and  de- 
clared by  the  two  governments. 

Such  joint  judicial  tribunal  shall  have  exclusive  jurisdiction  in  said 
zone  of  all  controversies  between  citizens  of  the  United  States  and 


284  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA   CANAL. 

citizens  of  Colombia,  and  between  citizens  of  nations  other  than 
Colombia  or  the  United  States:  and  also  of  all  crimes,  felonies  and 
misdemeanors  committed  within  said  zone,  and  of  all  questions  of 
admiralty  arising  therein. 

IV.  The  two  Governments  hereafter,  and  from  time  to  time  as 
occasion  arises,  shall  agree  upon  and  establish  the  laws  and  proce- 
dures which  shall  govern  such  joint  judicial  tribunal  and  which 
shall  be  applicable  to  the  persons  and  cases  over  which  such  tribunal 
shall  have  jurisdiction,  and  also  shall  likewise  create  the  requisite 
officers  and  employees  of  such  court  and  establish  their  powers  and 
duties;  and  further  shall  make  adequate  provision  by  like  agreement 
for  the  pursuit,  capture,  imprisonment,  detention  and  delivery  within 
said  zone  of  persons  charged  with  the  commitment  of  crimes,  felonies 
or  misdemeanors  without  said  zone:  and  for  the  pursuit,  capture, 
imprisonment,  detention  and  delivery  without  said  zone  of  persons 
charged  with  the  commitment  of  crimes,  felonies  and  misdemeanors 
within  said  zone. 

Article  XIV. 

The  works  of  the  canal,  the  railways  and  their  auxiliaries  are  de- 
clared of  public  utility,  and  in  consequence  all  areas  of  land  and 
water  necessary  for  the  construction,  maintenance,  and  operation  of 
the  canal  and  other  specified  works  may  be  expropriated  in  con- 
formity with  the  laws  of  Colombia,  except  that  the  indemnity  shall 
be  conclusively  determined  without  appeal,  by  a  joint  commission  ap- 
pointed by  the  Governments  of  Colombia  and  the  United  States. 

The  indemnities  awarded  by  the  Commission  for  such  expropria- 
tion shall  be  borne  by  the  United  States,  but  the  appraisal  of  said 
lands  and  the  assessment  of  damages  shall  be  based  upon  their  value- 
before  the  commencement  of  the  work  upon  the  canal. 

Article  XV. 

The  Republic  of  Colombia  grants  to  the  United  States  the  use  of  all 
the  ports  of  the  Republic  open  to  commerce  as  places  of  refuge  for 
any  vessels  employed  in  the  canal  enterprise,  and  for  all  vessels  in 
distress  having  the  right  to  pass  through  the  canal  and  wishing  to 
anchor  in  said  ports.  Such  vessels  shall  be  exempt  from  anchorage 
and  tonnage  dues  on  the  part  of  Colombia. 

Article  XVI. 

The  canal,  when  constructed,  and  the  entrance  thereto  shall  be  neu- 
tral in  perpetuity,  and  shall  be  opened  upon  the  terms  provided  for 
by  Section  I  of  Article  three  of,  and  in  conformity  with  all  the  stipu- 
lations of.  the  treaty  entered  into  by  the  Governments  of  the  United 
States  and  Great  Britain  on  November  18,  1901. 

Article  XVII. 

The  Government  of  Colombia  shall  have  the  right  to  transport  over 
the  canal  its  vessels,  troops,  and  munitions  of  war  at  all  times  without 
paying  charges  of  any  kind.  This  exemption  is  to  be  extended  to  the 
auxiliary  railway  for  the  transportation  of  persons  in  the  service  of 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  285 

the  Republic  of  Colombia  or  of  the  Department  of  Panama,  or  of  the 
police  force  charged  with  the  preservation  of  public  order  outside  of 
said  zone,  as  well  as  to  their  baggage,  munitions  of  war  and  supplies. 

Article  XVIII. 

The  United  States  shall  have  full  power  and  authority  to  establish 
and  enforce  regulations  for  the  use  of  the  canal,  railways,  and  the 
entering  ports  and  auxiliary  works,  and  to  fix  rates  of  tolls  and 
charges  thereof,  subject  to  the  limitations  stated  in  Article  XVI. 

Article  XIX. 

The  rights  and  privileges  granted  to  the  United  States  by  this 
convention  shall  not  affect  the  sovereignty  of  the  Republic  of  Colom- 
bia over  the  real  estate  that  may  be  acquired  by  the  United  States  by 
reason  of  the  transfer  of  the  rights  of  the  New  Panama  Canal  Com- 
pany and  the  Panama  Railroad  Company  lying  outside  of  the  said 
canal  zone. 

Article  XX. 

If  by  virtue  of  any  existing  treaty  between  the  Republic  of  Co- 
lombia and  any  third  power,  there  may  be  any  privilege  or  concession 
relative  to  an  interoceanic  means  of  communication  which  especially 
favors  such  third  power,  and  which  in  any  of  its  terms  may  be 
incompatible  with  the  terms  of  the  present  convention,  the  Republic 
of  Colombia  agrees  to  cancel  or  modify  such  treaty  in  due  form,  for 
which  purpose  it  shall  give  to  the  said  third  power  the  requisite  noti- 
fication within  the  term  of  four  months  from  the  date  of  the  present 
convention,  and  in  case  the  existing  treaty  contains  no  clause  permit- 
ting its  modification  or  annulment,  the  Republic  of  Colombia  agrees 
to  procure  its  modification  or  annulment  in  such  form  that  there  shall 
not  exist  any  conflict  with  the  stipulations  of  the  present  convention. 

Article  XXI. 

The  rights  and  privileges  granted  by  the  Republic  of  Colombia  to 
the  United  States  in  the  preceding  Articles  are  understood  to  be  free 
of  all  anterior  concessions  or  privileges  to  other  Governments,  cor- 
porations, syndicates  or  individuals,  and  consequently,  if  there  should 
arise  any  claims  on  account  of  the  present  concessions  and  privileges 
or  otherwise,  the  claimants  shall  resort  to  the  Government  of  Colom- 
bia and  not  to  the  United  States  for  any  indemnity  or  compromise 
which  may  be  required. 

Article  XXII. 

The  Republic  of  Colombia  renounces  and  grants  to  the  United 
States  the  participation  to  which  it  might  be  entitled  in  the  future 
earnings  of  the  canal  under  Article  XV  of  the  concessionary  contract 
with  Lucien  N.  B.  Wyse  now  owned  by  the  New  Panama  Canal 
Company  and  any  and  all  other  rights  or  claims  of  a  pecuniary  na- 
ture arising  under  or  relating  to  said  concession,  or  arising  under  or 
relating  to  the  concessions  to  the  Panama  Railroad  Company  or  any 


286  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA   CANAL. 

extension  or  modification  thereof;  and  it  likewise  renounces,  confirms 
and  grants  to  the  United  States,  now  and  hereafter,  all  the  rights 
and  property  reserved  in  the  said  concessions  which  otherwise  wrould 
belong  to  Colombia  at  or  before  the  expiration  of  the  terms  of  ninety- 
nine  years  of  the  concessions  granted  to  or  held  by  the  above  men- 
tioned party  and  companies,  and  all  right,  title  and  interest  which  it 
now  has  or  may  hereafter  have,  in  and  to  the  lands,  canal,  works, 
property  and  rights  held  by  the  said  companies  under  said  conces- 
sions or  otherwise,  and  acquired  or  to  be  acquired  by_  the  United 
States  from  or  through  the  New  Panama  Canal  Company,  including 
any  property  and  rights  which  might  or  may  in  the  future  either  by 
lapse  of  time,  forfeiture  or  otherwise,  revert  to  the  Republic  of 
Colombia  under  any  contracts  of  concessions,  with  said  Wyse,  the 
Universal  Panama  Canal  Company,  the  Panama  Railroad  Company 
find  the  New  Panama  Canal  Company. 

The  aforesaid  rights  and  property  shall  be  and  are  free  and  re- 
leased from  any  present  or  reversionary  interest  in  or  claims  of 
Colombia  and  the  title  of  the  United  States  thereto  upon  consumma- 
tion of  the  contemplated  purchase  by  the  United  States  from  the  New 
Panama  Canal  Company,  shall  be  absolute,  so  far  as  concerns  the 
Republic  of  Colombia,  excepting  always  the  rights  of  Colombia 
specifically  secured  under  this  treaty. 

Article  XXIII. 

If  it  should  become  necessary  at  any  time  to  employ  armed  forces 
for  the  safety  or  protection  of  the  canal,  or  of  the  ships  that  make 
use  of  the  same,  or  the  railways  and  other  works,  the  Republic  of 
Colombia  agrees  to  provide  the  forces  necessary  for  such  purpose, 
according  to  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  but  if  the  Government  of 
Colombia  cannot  effectively  comply  with  this  obligation,  then,  with 
the  consent  of  or  at  the  request  of  Colombia,  or  of  her  Minister  at 
Washington,  or  of  the  local  authorities,  civil  or  military,  the  United 
States  shall  employ  such  force  as  may  be  necessary  for  that  sole  pur- 
pose ;  and  as  soon  as  the  necessity  shall  have  ceased  will  withdraw 
the  forces  so  employed.  Under  exceptional  circumstances,  however, 
on  account  of  unforeseen  or  imminent  danger  to  said  canal,  railways 
and  other  works,  or  to  the  lives  and  property  of  the  persons  em- 
ployed upon  the  canal,  railways,  and  other  works,  the  Government 
of  the  United  States  is  authorized  to  act  in  the  interest  of  their  pro- 
tection, without  the  necessity  of  obtaining  the  consent  beforehand 
of  the  Government  of  Colombia :  and  it  shall  give  immediate  advice 
of  the  measures  adopted  for  the  purpose  stated;  and  as  soon  as  suffi- 
cient Colombian  forces  shall  arrive  to  attend  to  the  indicated  purpose, 
those  of  the  United  States  shall  retire. 

Article  XXIV. 

The  Government  of  the  United  States  agrees  to  complete  the  con- 
struction of  the  preliminary  works  necessary,  together  with  all  the 
auxiliary  works,  in  the  shortest  time  possible:  and  within  two  years 
from  the  date  of  the  exchange  of  ratification  of  this  convention  the 
main  works  of  the  canal  proper  shall  be  commenced,  and  it  shall  be 
opened  to  the  traffic  between  the  two  oceans  within  twelve  years  after 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL.  287 

such  period  of  two  years.  In  case,  however,  that  any  difficulties  or 
obstacles  should  arise  in  the  construction  of  the  canal  which  are  at 
present  impossible  to  foresee,  in  consideration  of  the  good  faith  with 
which  the  Government  of  the  United  States  shall  have  proceeded, 
and  the  large  amount  of  money  expended  so  far  on  the  works  and  the 
nature  of  the  difficulties  which  may  have  arisen,  the  Government  of 
Colombia  will  prolong  the  terms  stipulated  in  this  Article  up  to 
twelve  years  more  for  the  completion  of  the  work  of  the  canal. 

But  in  case  the  United  States  should,  at  any  time,  determine  to 
make  such  canal  practically  a  sea  level  canal,  then  such  period  shall 
be  extended  for  ten  years  further. 

Article  XXV. 

As  the  price  or  compensation  for  the  right  to  use  the  zone  granted 
in  this  convention  by  Colombia  to  the  United  States  for  the  con- 
struction of  a  canal,  together  with  the  proprietary  right  over  the 
Panama  Railroad,  and  for  the  annuity  of  two  hundred  and  fifty 
thousand  dollars  gold,  which  Colombia  ceases  to  receive  from  the 
said  railroad,  as  well  as  in  compensation  for  other  rights,  privileges 
and  exemptions  granted  to  the  United  States,  and  in  consideration 
of  the  increase  in  the  administrative  expenses  of  the  Department  of 
Panama  consequent  upon  the  construction  of  the  said  canal,  the 
Government  of  the  United  States  binds  itself  to  pay  Colombia  the 
sum  of  ten  million  dollars  in  gold  coin  of  the  United  States  on  the 
exchange  of  the  ratification  of  this  convention  after  its  approval  ac- 
cording to  the  laws  of  the  respective  countries,  and  also  an  annual 
payment  during  the  life  of  this  convention  of  two  hunderd  and  fifty 
thousand  dollars  in  like  gold  coin,  beginning  nine  years  after  the 
date  aforesaid. 

The  provisions  of  this  Article  shall  be  in  addition  to  all  other 
benefits  assured  to  Colombia  under  this  convention. 

But  no  delay  nor  difference  of  opinion  under  this  Article  shall 
affect  nor  interrupt  the  full  operation  and  effect  of  this  convention 
in  all  other  respects : 

Article  XXVI. 

Xo  change  either  in  the  Government  or  in  the  laws  and  treaties 
of  Columbia,  shall,  without  the  consent  of  the  United  States,  affect 
any  right  of  the  United  States  under  the  present  convention,  or  under 
any  treaty  stipulation  between  the  two  countries  (that  now  exist  or 
may  hereafter  exist)  touching  the  subject  matter  of  this  convention. 

If  Colombia  shall  hereafter  enter  as  a  constituent  into  any  other 
Government  or  into  any  union  or  confederation  of  States  so  as  to 
merge  her  sovereignty  or  independence  in  such  Government,  union, 
or  confederation,  the  rights  of  the  United  States  under  this  con- 
vention shall  not  be  in  any  respect  lessened  or  impaired. 

Article  XXVII. 

The  joint  commission  referred  to  in  Articles  III,  VII  and  XIV 
shall  be  established  as  follows  : 

The  President  of  the  United  States  shall  nominate  two  persons 
and  the  President  of  Colombia  shall  nominate  two  persons  and  they 


288  DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY  OF   THE   PANAMA  CANAL. 

shall  proceed  to  a  decision;  but  in  case  of  disagreement  of  the  Com- 
mission (by  reason  of  their  being  equally  divided  in  conclusion)  an 
umpire  shall  be  appointed  by  the  two  Governments,  who  shall  render 
the  decision.  In  the  event  of  death,  absence  or  incapacity  of  any 
Commissioner  or  umpire,  or  of  his  omitting,  declining  or  ceasing 
to  act,  his  place  shall  be  filled  by  the  appointment  of  another  person 
in  the  manner  above  indicated.  All  decisions  by  a  majority  of  the 
Commission  or  by  the  umpire  shall  be  final. 

Article  XXVIII. 

This  convention  when  signed  by  the  contracting  parties,  shall  be 
ratified  according  to  the  laws  of  the  respective  countries  and  shall 
be  exchanged  at  Washington  within  a  term  of  eight  months  from 
this  date,  or  earlier  if  possible. 

In  faith  whereof,  the  respective  plenipotentiaries  have  signed  the 
present  convention  in  duplicate  and  have  hereunto  affixed  their  re- 
spective seals. 

Done  at  the  City  of  Washington,  the  22d  day  of  January  in  the 
year  of  our  Lord  nineteen  hundred  and  three. 

(Signed)  John  Hay.  [seal.] 

(Signed)  Tomas  Herran.     [seal.] 


No.  3. 
FIRST  HAY-PAUNCEFOTE  TREATY. 

[Senate  Document  No.  160,  Fifty-sixth  Congress,  first  session.] 

CONVENTION  BETWEEN  THE  UNITED  STATES  AND  GREAT  BRITAIN 
TO    FACILITATE    THE    CONSTRUCTION    OF   A    SHIP    CANAL,    ETC. 

MESSAGE  FROM  THE  PRESIDENT  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES,  TRANSMITTING 
A  CONVENTION  BETWEEN  THE  UNITED  STATES  AND  GREAT  BRITAIN  TO 
FACILITATE  THE  CONSTRUCTION  OF  A  SHIP  CANAL  TO  CONNECT  THE 
ATLANTIC  AND  PACIFIC  OCEANS  AND  TO  REMOVE  ANY  OBJECTION  WHICH 
MIGHT  ARISE  OUT  OF  THE  CONVENTION  COMMONLY  CALLED  THE  CLAY- 
TON-BULWER   TREATY. 

[February  8,  1900:  Ordered  to  be  printed  together  with  "  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty."  De- 
cember 17,  1900  :  Ordered  reprinted  with  the  committee  amendment  already  adopted 
and  with  the  proposed  committee  amendments  in  place.  December  20,  1900 :  Ratified 
with  amendments ;  and  ordered  reprinted,  as  amended,  for  the  use  of  the  Senate.] 

To  the  Senate: 

I  transmit  herewith,  with  a  view  to  receive  the  advice  and  consent 
of  the  Senate  to  its  ratification,  a  convention  this  day  signed  by  the 
respective  plenipotentiaries  of  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  to 
facilitate  the  construction  of  a  ship  canal  to  connect  the  Atlantic  and 
Pacific  oceans,  and  to  remove  any  objection  which  might  arise  out  of 
the  convention  of  April  19,  1850,  commonly  called  the  Clayton- 
Bulwer  treaty,  to  the  construction  of  such  canal  under  the  auspices 
of  the  Government  of  the  United  States. 

William  McKinley. 

Executive  Mansion, 

Washington,  D.  C,  February  5,  1900. 


The  United  States  of  America  and  Her  Majesty  the  Queen  of 
the  United  Kingdom  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland,  Empress  of 
India,  being  desirous  to  facilitate  the  construction  of  a  ship  canal 
to  connect  the  Atlantic  and  Pacific  Oceans,  and  to  that  end  to 
remove  am^  objection  which  may  arise  out  of  the  Convention  of 
April  19,  1850,  commonly  called  the  Clayton-Bulwer  Treaty,  to 
the  construction  of  such  canal  under  the  auspices  of  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  United  States,  without  impairing  the  "general  prin- 
ciple "  of  neutralization  established  in  Article  VIII  of  that  Conven- 
tion, have  for  that  purpose  appointed  as  their  Plenipotentiaries: 

The  President  of  the  United  States.  John  Hay.  Secretary  of  State 
of  the  United  States  of  America, 

42112— K.  Doc.  474,  G3-2 19  2S9 


290  DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA  CANAL. 

And  Her  Majesty  the  Queen  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland,  Em- 
press of  India,  The  Right  Honble.  Lord  Pauncefote,  G.  C.  B.,  G.  C 
M.  G.,  Her  Majesty's  Ambassador  Extraordinary  and  Plenipoten- 
tiary to  the  United  States; 

Who,  having  communicated  to  each  other  their  full  powers,  which 
were  found  to  be  in  due  and  proper  form,  have  agreed  upon  the 
following  articles: 

Article  I. 

It  is  agreed  that  the  canal  may  be  constructed  under  the  auspices 
of  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  either  directly  at  its  own 
cost,  or  by  gift  or  loan  of  money  to  individuals  or  corporations  or 
through  subscription  to  or  purchase  of  stock  or  shares,  and  that, 
subject  to  the  provisions  of  the  present  Convention,  the  said  Govern- 
ment shall  have  and  enjoy  all  the  rights  incident  to  such  construc- 
tion, as  well  as  the  exclusive  right  of  providing  for  the  regulation 
and  management  of  the  canal. 

Article  II. 

The  High  Contracting  Parties,  desiring  to  preserve  and  maintain 
the  "  general  principle  "  of  neutralization  established  in  Article  VIII 
of  the  Clayton-Bulwer  Convention,  which  convention  is  hereby  su- 
perseded, adopt,  as  the  basis  of  such  neutralization,  the  following 
rules,  substantially  as  embodied  in  the  convention  between  Great 
Britain  and  certain  other  Powers,  signed  at  Constantinople,  October 
29,  1888,  for  the  Free  Navigation  of  the  Suez  Maritime  Canal,  that  is 
to  say: 

1.  The  canal  shall  be  free  and  open,  in  time  of  war  as  in  time  of 
peace,  to  the  vessels  of  commerce  and  of  war  of  all  nations,  on  terms 
of  entire  equality,  so  that  there  shall  be  no  discrimination  against 
any  nation  or  its  citizens  or  subjects  in  respect  of  the  conditions  or 
charges  of  traffic,  or  otherwise. 

2.  The  canal  shall  never  be  blockaded,  nor  shall  any  right  of  war 
be  exercised  nor  any  act  of  hostility  be  committed  within  it. 

3.  Vessels  of  war  of  a  belligerent  shall  not  revictual  nor  take  any 
stores  in  the  canal  except  so  far  as  may  be  strictly  necessary ;  and 
the  transit  of  such  vessels  through  the  canal  shall  be  effected  with  the, 
least  possible  delay,  in  accordance  with  the  regulations  in  force, 
and  with  only  such  intermission  as  may  result  from  the  necessities 
of  the  service. 

Prizes  shall  be  in  all  respects  subject  to  the  same  rules  as  vessels 
of  war  of  the  belligerents. 

4.  No  belligerent  shall  embark  or  disembark  troops,  munitions  of 
war  or  warlike  materials  in  the  canal  except  in  case  of  accidental 
hindrance  of  the  transit,  and  in  such  case  the  transit  shall  be  resumed 
with  all  possible  despatch. 

5.  The  provisions  of  this  article  shall  apply  to  waters  adjacent  to 
the  canal,  within  three  marine  miles  of  either  end.  Vessels  of  war 
of  a  belligerant  shall  not  remain  in  such  waters  longer  than  twenty- 
four  hours  at  any  one  time  except  in  case  of  distress,  and  in  such 
case  shall  depart  as  soon  as  possible;  but  a  vessel  of  war  of  one 
belligerent  shall  not  depart  within  twenty-four  hours  from  the  de- 
parture of  a  vessel  of  Avar  of  the  other  belligerent. 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    01     THE    PANAMA   CANAL.  291 

It  is  agreed,  however,  that  none  of  the  immediately  foregoing 
conditions  and  stipulations  in  section*  numbered  one,  two,  three, 
four,  and  five  of  this  article  shall  apply  to  measures  which  the 
United  States  may  find  it  necessary  to  take  for  securing  by  its  own 
forces  the  defense  of  the  United  State,"  and  the  maintenance  of 
public  order. 

6.  The  plant,  establishments,  building;:,  and  all  works  necessary 
to  the  construction,  maintenance  and  operation  of  the  canal  shall  be 
deemed  to  be  part  thereof,  for  the  purposes  of  this  convention,  and 
in  time  of  war  as  in  time  of  peace  shall  enjoy  complete  immunity 
from  attack  or  injury  by  belligerents  and  from  acts  calculated  to 
impair  their  usefulness  as  part  of  the  canal. 

7.  No  fortifications  shall  be  erected  commanding  the  canal  or  the 
waters  adjacent.  The  United  States,  however,  shall  be  at  liberty 
to  maintain  such  military  police  along  the  canal  as  may  be  necessary 
to  protect  it  against  lawlessness  and  disorder. 

[Article  III  stricken  out.J 

[Article  II I.J 

[The  High  Contracting  Parties  will,  immediately  upon  the  ex- 
change of  the  ratifications  of  this  Convention,  bring  it  to  the  notice 
of  the  other  Powers  and  invite  them  to  adhere  to  it.J 

Article  IV. 

The  present  Convention  shall  be  ratified  by  the  President  of  the 
United  States,  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate 
thereof,  and  by  Her  Britannic  Majesty;  and  the  ratifications  shall 
be  exchanged  at  Washington  or  at  London  within  six  months  from 
the  date  hereof,  or  earlier  if  possible. 

In  faith  wrhereof,  the  respective  Plenipotentiaries,  have  signed  this 
Convention  and  thereunto  affixed  their  seals. 

Done  in  duplicate  at  Washington,  the  fifth  day  of  February,  in 
the  year  of  Our  Lord  one  thousand  nine  hundred. 

John  Hat. 
Pauncefote. 


No.  4. 
HAY-PAUNCEFOTE  TREATY. 

TREATY  BETWEEN  THE  UNITED  STATES  AND  GREAT  BRITAIN  TO  FACILITATE 
THE  CONSTRUCTION  OF  A  SHIP  CANAL. 

[Signed  at  Washington,  November  18,  1901;  ratification  advised  by  the  Senate,  De- 
cember 16,  1901;  ratified  by  the  President,  December  26,  1901;  ratified  by  Great 
Britain,  January  20,  1902  ;  ratifications  exchanged  at  Washington,  February  21,  1902  ; 
proclaimed,  February  22,  1902.] 

By  the  President  or  the  United  States  of  America. 

\    PROCLAMATION. 

Whereas,  a  Convention  between  the  United  States  of  America  and 
the  United  Kingdom  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland,  to  facilitate 
the  construction  of  a  ship  canal  to  connect  the  Atlantic  and  Pacific 
Oceans,  by  whatever  route  may  be  considered  expedient,  and  to  that 
end  to  remove  any  objection  which  may  arise  out  of  the  Convention 
of  the  19th  April  I  1850,  commonly  called  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty, 
to  the  construction  of  such  canal  under  the  auspices  of  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  United  States,  without  impairing  the  "  general  prin- 
ciple "  of  neutralization  established  in  Article  VIII  of  that  Conven- 
tion, was  concluded  and  signed  by  their  respective  plenipotentiaries 
at  the  city  of  Washington  on  the  18th  day  of  November.  1001,  the 
original  of  which  Convention  is  word  for  word  as  follows: 

The  United  States  of  America  and  His  Majesty  Edward  the 
Seventh,  of  the  United  Kingdom  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland,  and 
of  the  British  Dominions  beyond  the  Seas,  King,  and  Emperor  of 
India,  being  desirous  to  facilitate  the  construction  of  a  ship  canal 
to  connect  the  Atlantic  and  Pacific  Oceans,  by  whatever  route  may 
be  considered  expedient,  and  to  that  end  to  remove  any  objection 
which  mav  arise  out  of  the  Convention  of  the  19th  April,  1850,  com- 
monly called  the  Clayton-Bulwer  Treaty,  to  the  construction  of 
such  canal  under  the  auspices  of  the  Government  of  the  United 
States,  without  impairing  the  ''general  principle"  of  neutralization 
established  in  Article  VIII  of  that  Convention,  have  for  that  pur- 
pose appointed  as  their  Plenipotentiaries : 

The  President  of  the  United  States,  John  Hay,  Secretary  of  State 
of  the  United  States  of  America  : 

And  His  Majesty  Edward  the  Seventh,  of  the  United  Kingdom  of 
Great  Britain  and'lreland,  and  of  the  British  Dominions  beyond  the 
Seas,  King,  and  Emperor  of  India,  the  Eight  Honourable  Lord 
Pauncefote,  G.  C.  B.,  G.  C.  M.  G.,  His  Majesty's  Ambassador 
Extraordinary  and  Plenipotentiary  to  the  United  States; 

Who,  having  communicated  to  each  other  their  full  powers  which 
were  found  to  be  in  due  and  proper  form,  have  agreed  upon  the  fol- 
lowing Articles: — 
292 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OP   TKL    PANAMA    CANAL.  293 

Article  I. 

The  High  Contracting  Parties  agree  that  the  present  Treaty  shall 
supersede  the  afore-mentioned  Convention  of  the  19th  April,  1850. 

Article  IT 

It  is  agreed  that  the  canal  may  be  constructed  under  the  auspices 
of  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  either  directly  at  its  own 
cost,  or  by  gift  or  loan  of  money  to  individuals  or  Corporations,  or 
through  subscription  to  or  purchase  of  stock  or  shares,  and  that, 
subject  to  the  provisions  of  the  present  Treaty.,  the  said  Government 
shall  have  and  enjoy  all  the  rights  incident  to  such  construction,  as 
well  as  the  exclusive  right  of  providing  for  the  regulation  and  man- 
agement of  the  canal. 

Article  III. 

The.  United  States  adopts,  as  the  basis  oi  the  neutralization!  of 
such  ship  canal,  the  following  Rules,  substantially  as  embodied  in 
the  Convention  of  Constantinople,  signed  the  28th  October.  1888. 
for  the  free  navigation  of  the  Suez  Canal,  that  is  to  say : 

1.  The  canal  shall  be  free  and  open  to  the  vessels  of  commerce 
and  of  war  of  all  nations  observing  these  Rules,  on  terms  of  entire 
equality,  so  that  there  shall  be  no  discrimination  against  any  such 
nation,  or  its  citizens  or  subjects,  in  respect  of  the  conditions  or 
charges  of  traffic,  or  otherwise.  Such  conditions  and  charges  of 
traffic  shall  be  just  and  equitable. 

2.  The  canal  shall  never  be  blockaded,  nor  shall  any  right  of 
Avar  be  exercised  nor  any  act  of  hostility  be  committed  within  it. 
The  United  States,  however,  shall  be  at  liberty  to  maintain  such 
military  police  along  the  canal  as  mav  be  necessary  to  protect  it 
against  lawlessness  and  disorder. 

3.  Vessels  of  war  of  a  belligerent  shall  not  revictual  nor  take 
any  stores  in  the  canal  except  so  far  as  may  be  strictly  necessary; 
and  the  transit  of  such  vessels  through  the  canal  shall  be  effected 
with  the  least  possible  delay  in  accordance  with  the  Regulations  in 
force,  and  with  only  such  intermission  as  may  result  from  the  neces- 
sities of  the  service. 

Prizes  shall  be  in  all  respects  subject  to  the  same  Rule^  as  vessels 
of  war  of  the  belligerents. 

4.  No  belligerent  shall  embark  or  disembark  troops,  munitions  of 
war,  or  warlike  materials  in  the  canal,  except  in  case  of  accidental 
hindrance  of  the  transit,  and  in  such  case  the  transit  shall  be  resumed 
with  all  possible  dispatch. 

5.  The  provisions  of  this  Article  shall  apply  to  waters  adjacent  to 
the  canal,  within  3  marine  miles  of  either  end.     Vessels  of  war  of  a 

v  belligerent  shall  not  remain  in  such  waters  longer  than  twenty-four 
hours  at  any  one  time,  except  in  case  of  distress,  and  in  such  case 
shall  depart  as  soon  as  possible;  but  a  vessel  of  war  of  one  belligerent 
shall  not  depart  within  twenty-four  hours  from  the  departure  of  a 
vessel  of  war  of  the  other  belligerent, 

6.  The  plant,  establishments,  buildings,  and  all  works  necessary 
to  the  construction,  maintenance,  and  operation  of  the  canal  shall 


294  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

be  deemed  to  be  part  thereof,  for  the  purposes  of  this  Treaty,  and 
in  time  of  war,  as  in  time  of  peace,  shall  enjoy  complete  immunity 
from  attack  or  injury  by  belligerents,  and  from  acts  calculated  to 
impair  their  usefulness  as  part  of  the  canal. 

Article  IV. 

It  is  agreed  that  no  change  of  territorial  sovereignty  or  of  the 
international  relations  of  the  country  or  countries  traversed  by  the 
before-mentioned  canal  shall  affect  the  general  principle  of  neutrali- 
zation or  the  obligation  of  the  High  Contracting  Parties  under  the 
present  Treaty. 

Article  V. 

The  present  Treaty  shall  be  ratified  by  the  President  of  the  United 
States,  by  and  with*  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate  thereof, 
and  by  His  Britannic  Majesty;  and  the  ratifications  shall  be  ex- 
changed at  Washington  or  at  London  at  the  earliest  possible  time 
within  six  months  from  the  date  hereof. 

In  faith  whereof  the  respective  Plenipotentiaries  have  signed 
this  Treaty  and  thereunto  affixed  their  seals. 

Done  in  duplicate  at  Washington,  the  18th  day  of  November,  in 
the  year  of  Our  Lord  one  thousand  nine  hundred  and  one. 

John  Hay        [seal.] 
Patjncefote.     [seal.] 

And  Whereas  the  said  Convention  has  been  duly  ratified  on  both 
parts,  and  the  ratification  of  the  two  Governments  were  exchanged 
in  the  city  of  Washington  on  the  twenty-first  day  of  February,  one 
thousand  nine  hundred  and  two. 

Now,  therefore,  be  it  known  that  I,  Theodore  Roosevelt,  President 
of  the  United  States  of  America,  have  caused  the  said  Convention  to 
be  made  public,  to  the  end  that  the  same  and  every  article  and  clause 
thereof  may  be  observed  and  fulfilled  with  good  faith  by  the  United 
States  and  the  citizens  thereof. 

In  witness  whereof  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  caused  the 
seal  of  the  United  States  to  be  affixed. 

Done  at  the  City  of  Washington,  this  twenty-second  day  of  Feb- 
ruary, in  the  year  of  Our  Lord  one  thousand  nine  hundred  and  two, 
and  of  the  Independence  of  the  United  States  the  one  hundred  and 
twenty-sixth . 

[seal.]  Theodore  Roosevelt 

By  the  President : 
John  Hay 

Secretary  of  State. 


No.  5. 
HAY-BUNAU  VARILLA  TREATY. 

CONVENTION  BETWEEN  THE  UNITED  STATES  AND  THE  REPUBLIC  OF 
PANAMA  FOR  THE  CONSTRUCTION  OF  A  SHIP  CANAL  TO  CONNECT  THE 
WATERS  OF  THE  ATLANTIC  AND  PACIFIC  OCEANS. 


I  Signed  at  Washington,  November  18,  1903  ;  ratification  advised  by  the  Senate,  February 

23,  1904  ;  ratified  by  the  President,  February  25,  1904  ;  ratified  by  Panama,  December 

2,  1903;   ratifications  exchanged  at  Washington,  February  26,   1904;   proclaimed,  Feb- 
ruary 26,  1904.] 

By  the  President  of  the  United  States  of  America. 

a  proclamation. 

Whereas  a  Convention  between  the  United  States  of  An  erica  and 
the  Republic  of  Panama  to  insure  the  construction  of  a  ship  canal 
across  the  Isthmus  of  Panama  to  connect  the  Atlantic  and  Pacific 
Oceans,  was  concluded  and  signed  by  their  respective  Plenipoten- 
tiaries at  Washington,  on  the  eighteenth  day  of  November,  one 
thousand  nine  hundred  and  three,  the  original  of  which  Convention, 
being  in  the  English  language,  is  word  for  word  as  follows : 

ISTHMIAN  CANAL  CONVENTION. 

The  United  States  of  America  and  the  Republic  of  Panama  being 
desirous  to  insure  the  construction  of  a  ship  canal  across  the  Isthmus 
of  Panama  to  connect  the  Atlantic  and  Pacific  oceans,  and  the  Con- 
gress of  the  United  States  of  America  having  passed  an  act  approved 
June  28.  1902,  in  furtherance  of  that  object,  by  which  the  President 
of  the  United  States  is  authorized  to  acquire  within  a  reasonable 
time  the  control  of  the  necessary  territory  of  the  Republic  of  Co- 
lombia, and  the  sovereignty  of  such  territory  being  actually  vested 
in  the  Republic  of  Panama,  the  high  contracting  parties  have  re- 
solved lor  that  purpose  to  conclude  a  convention  and  have  accord- 
ingly appointed  as  their  plenipotentiaries, — 

The  President  of  the  United  States  of  America,  John  Hay,  Sec- 
retary of  State,  and 

The  Government  of  the  Republic  of  Panama,  Philippe  Bunau- 
Varilla.  Envoy  Extraordinary  and  Minister  Plenipotentiary  of  the 
Republic  of  Panama,  thereunto  specially  empowered  by  said  gov- 
ernment, who  after  comn  unicating  with  each  other  their  respective 
full  powers,  found  to  be  in  good  and  due  form,  have  agreed  upon 
and  concluded  the  following  articles : 

295 


296  DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

Article  I. 

The  United  States  guarantees  and  will  maintain  the  independence 
of  the  Republic  of  Panama. 

Article  II. 

The  Republic  of  Panama  grants  to  the  United  States  in  perpe- 
tuity the  use,  occupation  and  control  of  a  zone  of  land  and  land 
under  water  for  the  construction,  maintenance,  operation,  sanitation 
and  protection  of  said  Canal  of  the  width  of  ten  miles  extending  to 
the  distance  of  five  miles  on  each  side  of  the  center  line  of  the  route 
of  the  Canal  to  be  constructed ;  the  said  zone  beginning  in  the  Carib- 
bean Sea  three  marine  miles  from  mean  low  water  mark  and  extend- 
ing to  and  across  the  Isthmus  of  Panama  into  the  Pacific  ocean  to  a 
distance  of  three  marine  miles  from  mean  low  water  mark  with  the 
proviso  that  the  cities  of  Panama  and  Colon  and  the  harbors  adja- 
cent to  said  cities,  which  are  included  within  the  boundaries  of  the 
zone  above  described,  shall  not  be  included  within  this  grant.  The 
Republic  of  Panama  further  grants  to  the  United  States  in  perpe- 
tuity the  use,  occupation  and  control  of  any  other  lands  and  waters 
outside  of  the  zone  above  described  which  may  be  necessary  and 
convenient  for  the  construction,  maintenance,  operation,  sanitation 
and  protection  of  the  said  Canal  or  of  any  auxiliary  canals  or  other 
works  necessary  and  convenient  for  the  construction,  maintenance, 
operation,  sanitation  and  protection  of  the  said  enterprise. 

The  Republic  of  Panama  further  grants  in  like  manner  to  the 
United  States  in  perpetuity  all  islands  within  the  limits  of  the  zone 
above  described  and  in  addition  thereto  the  group  of  small  islands  . 
in  the  Bay  of  Panama,  named  Perico,  Naos,  Culebra  and  Flamenco./ 

Article  III. 

/  The  Republic  of  Panama  grants  to  the  United  States  all  the  rights, 
power  and  authority  within  the  zone  mentioned  and  described  in 
Article  II  of  this  agreement  and  within  the  limits  of  all  auxiliary 
lands  and  waters  n  entioned  and  described  in  said  Article  II  which 
the  United  States  would  possess  and  exercise  if  it  were  the  sovereign 
of  the  territory  within  which  said  lands  and  waters  are  located  to 
the  entire  exclusion  of  the  exercise  by  the  Republic  of  Panama  of 
any  such  sovereign  rights,  power  or  authority. 

Article  IV. 

As  rights  subsidiary  to  the  above  grants  the  Republic  of  Panama 
grants  in  perpetuit}'  to  the  United  States  the  right  to  use  the  rivers, 
streams,  lakes  and  other  bodies  of  water  within  its  limits  for  naviga- 
tion, the  supply  of  water  or  water-power  or  other  purposes,  so  far 
as  the  use  of  said  rivers,  streams,  lakes  and  bodies  of  water  and  the 
waters  thereof  may  be  necessary  and  convenient  for  the  construction, 
maintenance,  operation,  sanitation  and  protection  of  the  said  Canal. 

Article  V. 

The  Republic  of  Panama  grants  to  the  United  States  in  perpetuity 
a  monopoly  for  the  construction,  maintenance  and  operation  of  any 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA   CAXAL.  297 

system  of  communication  by  means  of  canal  or  railroad  across  its 
territory  between  the  Caribbean  Sea  and  the  Pacific  ocean. 

Article  VI. 

The  grants  herein  contained  shall  in  no  manner  invalidate  the  titles 
or  rights  of  private  land  holders  or  owners  of  private  property  in  the 
said  zone  or  in  or  to  any  of  the  lands  or  waters  granted  to  the  United 
States  by  the  provisions  of  any  Article  of  this  treaty,  nor  shall  they 
interfere  with  the  rights  of  way  over  the  public  roads  passing 
through  the  said  zone  or  over  any  of  the  said  lands  of  waters  unless 
said  rights  of  way  or  private  rights  shall  conflict  with  rights  herein 
granted  to  the  United  States  in  which  case  the  rights  of  the  United 
States  shall  be  superior.  All  damages  caused  to  the  owners  of  private 
lands  or  private  property  of  any  kind  by  reason  of  the  grants  con- 
tained in  this  treaty  or  by  reason  of  the  operations  of  the  United 
States,  its  agents  or  employees,  or  by  reason  of  the  construction, 
maintenance,  operation,  sanitation  and  protection  of  the  said  Canal 
or  of  the  works  of  sanitation  and  protection  herein  provided  for, 
shall  be  appraised  and  settled  by  a  joint  Commission  appointed  by 
the  Governments  of  the  United  States  and  the  Kepublic  of  Panama, 
whose  decisions  as  to  such  damages  shall  be  final  and  whose  awards 
as  to  such  damages  shall  be  paid  solely  by  the  United  States.  No 
part  of  the  work  on  said  Canal  or  the  Panama  railroad  or  on  any 
auxiliary  works  relating  thereto  and  authorized  by  the  terms  of  this 
treaty  shall  be  prevented,  delayed  or  impeded  by  or  pending  such 
proceedings  to  ascertain  such  damages.  The  appraisal  of  said  private 
lands  and  private  property  and  the  assessment  of  damages  to  them 
shall  be  based  upon  their  value  before  the  date  of  this  convention. 

Article  VII. 

The  Kepublic  of  Panama  grants  to  the  United  States  within  the 
limits  of  the  cities  of  Panama  and  Colon  and  their  adjacent  harbors 
and  within  the  territory  adjacent  thereto  the  right  to  acquire  by 
purchase  or  by  the  exercise  of  the  right  of  eminent  domain,  any 
lands,  buildings,  water  rights  or  other  properties  necessary  and  con- 
venient for  the  construction,  maintenance,  operation  and  protection 
of  the  Canal  and  of  any  works  of  sanitation,  such  as  the  collection 
and  disposition  of  sewage  and  the  distribution  of  water  in  the  said 
cities  of  Panama  and  Colon,  which,  in  the  discretion  of  the  United 
States  may  be  necessary  and  convenient  for  the  construction,  mainte- 
nance, operation,  sanitation  and  protection  of  the  said  Canal  and 
railroad.  All  such  works  of  sanitation,  collection  and  disposition 
of  sewage  and  distribution  of  water  in  the  cities  of  Panama  and  Colon 
shall  be  made  at  the  expense  of  the  United  States,  and  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  United  States,  its  agents  or  nominees  shall  be  authorized 
to  impose  and  collect  water  rates  and  sewerage  rates  which  shall  be 
sufficient  to  provide  for  the  payment  of  interest  and  the  amortiza- 
tion of  the  principal  of  the  cost  of  said  works  within  a  period  of  fifty 
years  and  upon  the  expiration  of  said  term  of  fifty  years  the  system 
of  sewers  and  water  works  shall  revert  to  and  become  the  properties 
of  the  cities  of  Panama  and  Colon  respectively,  and  the  use  of  the 
water  shall  be  free  to  the  inhabitants  of  Panama  and  Colon,  except 


298  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE    PANAMA   CANAL. 

to  the  extent  that  water  rates  may  be  necessary  for  the  operation 
and  maintenance  of  said  system  of  sewers  and  water. 

The  Republic  of  Panama  agrees  that  the  cities  of  Panama  and 
Colon  shall  comply  in  prepetuity  with  the  sanitary  ordinances 
whether  of  a  preventive  or  curative  character  prescribed  by  the 
United  States  and  in  case  the  Government  of  Panama  is  unable  or 
fails  in  its  duty  to  enforce  this  compliance  by  the  cities  of  Panama 
and  Colon  with  the  sanitary  ordinances  of  the  United  States  the 
Republic  of  Panama  grants  to  the  United  States  the  right  and 
authority  to  enforce  the  same. 

The  same  right  and  authority  are  granted  to  the  United  States 
for  the  maintenance  of  public  order  in  the  cities  of  Panama  and 
Colon  and  the  territories  and  harbors  adjacent  thereto  in  case  the 
Republic  of  Panama  should  not  be,  in  the  judgment  of  the  United 
States,  able  to  maintain  such  order. 

Article  VIII. 

The  Republic  of  Panama  grants  to  the  United  States  all  rights 
which  it  now  has  or  hereafter  may  acquire  to  the  property  of  the 
New  Panama  Canal  Company  and  the  Panama  Railroad  Company 
as  a  result  of  the  transfer  of  sovereignty  from  the  Republic  of 
Colombia  to  the  Republic  of  Panama  over  the  Isthmus  of  Panama 
and  authorizes  the  New  Panama  Canal  Company  to  sell  and  transfer 
to  the  United  States  its  rights,  privileges,  properties  and  concessions 
as  well  as  the  Panama  Railroad  and  all  the  shares  or  part  of  the 
shares  of  that  company ;  but  the  public  lands  situated  outside  of  the 
zone  described  in  Article  II  of  this  treaty  now  included  in  the  con- 
cessions to  both  said  enterprises  and  not  required  in  the  construction 
or  operation  of  the  Canal  shall  revert  to  the  Republic  of  Panama 
except  any  property  now  owned  by  or  in  the  possession  of  said 
companies  within  Panama  or  Colon  or  the  ports  or  terminals  thereof. 

Article  IX. 

The  United  States  agrees  that  the  ports  at  either  entrance  of  the 
Canal  and  the  waters  thereof,  and  the  Republic  of  Panama  agrees 
that  the  towns  of  Panama  and  Colon  shall  be  free  for  all  time  so 
that  there  shall  not  be  imposed  or  collected  custom  house  tolls, 
tonnage,  anchorage,  lighthouse,  wharf,  pilot,  or  quarantine  dues  or 
any  other  charges  or  taxes  of  any  kind  upon  any  vessel  using  or 
passing  through  the  Canal  or  belonging  to  or  employed  by  the 
United  States,  directly  or  indirectly,  in  connection  with  the  con- 
struction, maintenance,  operation,  sanitation  and  protection  of  the 
main  Canal,  or  auxiliary  works,  or  upon  the  cargo,  officers,  crew,  or 
passengers  of  any  such  vessels,  except  such  tolls  and  charges  as  may 
be  imposed  by  the  United  States  for  the  use  of  the  Canal  and  other 
works,  and  except  tolls  and  charges  imposed  by  the  Republic  of 
Panama  upon  merchandise  destined  to  be  introduced  for  the  con- 
sumption of  the  rest  of  the  Republic  of  Panama,  and  upon  vessels 
touching  at  the  ports  of  Colon  and  Panama  and  which  do  not  cross 
the  Canal. 

The  Government  of  the  Republic  of  Panama  shall  have  the  right 
to  establish  in  such  ports  and  in  the  towns  of  Panama  and  Colon 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL.  299 

such  houses  and  guards  as  it  may  deem  necessary  to  collect  duties 
on  importations  destined  to  other  portions  of  Panama  and  to  prevent 
contraband  trade.  The  United  States  shall  have  the  right  to  make 
use  of  the  towns  and  harbors  of  Panama  and  Colon  as  places  of 
anchorage,  and  for  making  repairs,  for  loading,  unloading,  deposit- 
ing, or  transshipping  cargoes  either  in  transit  or  destined  for  the 
service  of  the  Canal  and  for  other  works  pertaining  to  the  Canal. 

Article  X. 

The  Republic  of  Panama  agrees  that  there  shall  not  be  imposed 
any  taxes,  national,  municipal,  departmental,  or  of  any  other  class, 
upon  the  Canal,  the  railways  and  auxiliary  works,  tugs  and  other 
vessels  employed  in  the  service  of  the  Canal,  store  houses,  work 
shops,  offices,  quarters  for  laborers,  factories  of  all  kinds,  ware- 
houses, wharves,  machinery  and  other  works,  property,  and  effects 
appertaining  to  the  Canal  or  railroad  and  auxiliary  works,  or  their 
officers  or  employees,  situated  within  the  cities  of  Panama  and  Colon, 
and  that  there  shall  not  be  imposed  contributions  or  charges  of  a 
personal  character  of  any  kind  upon  officers,  employees,  laborers, 
and  other  individuals  in  the  service  of  the  Canal  and  railroad  and 
auxiliary  works. 

Article  XT. 

The  United  States  agrees  that  the  official  dispatches  of  the  Gov- 
ernment of  the  Republic  of  Panama  shall  be  transmitted  over  any 
telegraph  and  telephone  lines  established  for  canal  purposes  and 
used  for  public  and  private  business  at  rates  not  higher  than  those 
required  from  officials  in  the  service  of  the  United  States. 

Article  XII. 

The  Government  of  the  Republic  of  Panama  shall  permit  the 
immigration  and  free  access  to  the  lands  and  workshops  of  the  Canal 
and  its  auxiliary  works  of  all  employees  and  workmen  of  whatever 
nationality  under  contract  to  work  upon  or  seeking  employment 
upon  or  in  any  wise  connected  with  the  said  Canal  and  its  auxiliary 
works,  with  their  respective  families,  and  all  such  persons  shall  be 
free  and  exempt  from  the  military  service  of  the  Republic  of 
Panama. 

Article  XIII. 

The  United  States  may  import  at  any  time  into  the  said  zone 
and  auxiliary  lands,  free  of  custom  duties,  imposts,  taxes,  or  other 
charges,  and  without  any  restrictions,  any  and  all  vessels,  dredges, 
engines,  cars,  machinery,  tools,  explosives,  materials,  supplies,  and 
other  articles  necessary  and  convenient  in  the  construction,  mainte- 
nance, operation,  sanitation  and  protection  of  the  Canal  and  auxil- 
iary works,  and  all  provisions,  medicines,  clothing,  supplies  and 
other  things  necessary  and  convenient  for  the  officers,  employees, 
workmen  and  laborers  in  the  service  and  employ  of  the  United  States 
and  for  their  families.  If  any  such  articles  are  disposed  of  for  use 
outside  of  the  zone  and  auxiliary  lands  granted  to  the  United  States 


300  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

and  within  the  territory  of  the  Republic,  they  shall  be  subject  to  the 
same  import  or  other  duties  as  like  articles  imported  under  the  laws 
of  the  Republic  of  Panama.  ' 

Article  XIV. 

As  the  price  or  compensation  for  the  rights,  powers  and  privi- 
leges granted  in  this  convention  by  the  Republic  of  Panama  to  the 
United  States,  the  Government  of  the  United  States  agrees  to  pay  to 
the  Republic  of  Panama  the  sum  of  ten  million  dollars  ($10,000,000) 
in  gold  coin  of  the  United  States  on  the  exchange  of  the  ratification 
of  this  convention  and  also  an  annual  payment  during  the  life  of 
this  convention  of  two  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  dollars  ($250,000) 
in  like  gold  coin,  beginning  nine  years  after  the  date  aforesaid. 

The  provisions  of  this  Article  shall  be  in  addition  to  all  other 
benefits  assured  to  the  Republic  of  Panama  under  this  cenvention. 

But  no  delay  or  difference  of  opinion  under  this  Article  or  any 
other  provisions  of  this  treaty  shall  affect  or  interrupt  the  full  opera- 
tion and  effect  of  this  convention  in  all  other  respects.  .) 

Article  XV. 

The  joint  commission  referred  to  in  Article  VI  shall  be  established 
as  follow: 

The  President  of  the  United  States  shall  nominate  two  persons 
and  the  President  of  the  Republic  of  Panama  shall  nominate  two 
persons  and  they  shall  proceed  to  a  decision ;  but  in  case  of  disagree- 
ment of  the  Commission  (by  reason  of  their  being  equally  divided 
in  conclusion)  an  umpire  shall  be  appointed  by  the  two  Governments 
who  shall  render  the  decision.  In  the  event  of  the  death,  absence, 
or  incapacity  of  a  Commissioner  or  Umpire,  or  of  his  omitting, 
declining  or  ceasing  to  act,  his  place  shall  be  filled  by  the  appoint- 
ment of  another  person  in  the  manner  above  indicated.  All  deci- 
sions by  a  majority  of  the  Commission  or  by  the  umpire  shall  be 
final. 

Article  XVI. 

The  two  Governments  shall  make  adequate  provision  by  future 
agreement  for  the  pursuit,  capture,  imprisonment,  detention  and 
delivery  within  said  zone  and  auxiliary  lands  to  the  authorities  of 
the  Republic  of  Panama  of  persons  charged  with  the  commitment 
of  crimes,  felonies  or  misdemeanors  without  said  zone  and  for  the 
pursuit,  capture,  imprisonment,  detention  and  delivery  without  said 
zone  to  the  authorities  of  the  United  States  of  persons  charged  with 
the  commitment  of  crimes,  felonies  and  misdemeanors  within  said 
zone  and  auxiliary  lands. 

Article  XVII. 

The  Republic  of  Panama  grants  to  the  United  States  the  use  of 
all  the  ports  of  the  Republic  open  to  commerce  as  places  of  refuge 
for  any  vessels  employed  in  the  Canal  enterprise,  and  for  all  vessels 
passing  or  bound  to  pass  through  the  Canal  which  may  be  in  dis- 
tress and  be  driven  to  seek  refuge  in  said  ports.     Such  vessels  shall 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA  CAXAL.  301 

be  exempt  from  anchorage  and  tonnage  dues  on  the  part  of  the 
Republic  of  Panama. 

Article  XVIII. 

The  Canal,  when  constructed,  and  the  entrances  thereto  shall  be 
neutral  in  perpetuity,  and  shall  be  opened  upon  the  terms  provided 
for  by  Section  I  of  Article  three  of,  and  in  conformity  with  all  the 
stipulations  of,  the  treaty  entered  into  by  the  Governments  of  the 
United  States  and  Great  Britain  on  November  18,  1901. 

Article  XIX. 

The  Government  of  the  Republic  of  Panama  shall  have  the  right 
to  transport  over  the  Canal  its  vessels  and  its  troops  and  munitions 
of  war  in  such  vessels  at  all  times  without  paying  charges  of  any 
kind.  The  exemption  is  to  be  extended  to  the  auxiliary  railway 
for  the  transportation  of  persons  in  the  service  of  the  Republic  of 
Panama,  or  of  the  police  force  charged  with  the  preservation  of  pub- 
lic order  outside  of  said  zone,  as  well  as  to  their  baggage,  munitions 
of  war  and  supplies. 

Article  XX. 

If  by  virtue  of  any  existing  treaty  in  relation  to  the  territory  of 
the  Isthmus  of  Panama,  whereof  the  obligations  shall  descend  or  be 
assumed  by  the  Republic  of  Panama,  there  may  be  any  privilege  or 
concession  in  favor  of  the  Government  or  the  citizens  and  subjects 
of  a  third  power  relative  to  an  interoceanic  means  of  communication 
which  in  any  of  its  terms  may  be  incompatible  with  the  terms  of  the 
present  convention,  the  Republic  of  Panama  agrees  to  cancel  or 
modify  such  treaty  in  due  form,  for  which  purpose  it  shall  give  to 
the  said  third  power  the  requisite  notification  within  the  term  of 
four  months  from  the  date  of  the  present  convention,  and  in  case 
the  existing  treaty  contains  no  clause  permitting  its  modifications 
or  annulment,  the  Republic  of  Panama  agrees  to  procure  its  modifi- 
cation or  annulment  in  such  form  that  there  shall  not  exist  any  con- 
flict with  the  stipulations  of  the  present  convention. 

Article  XXI. 

The  rights  and  privileges  granted  by  the  Republic  of  Panama 
to  the  United  States  in  the  preceding  Articles  are  understood  to  be 
free  of  all  anterior  debts,  liens,  trusts,  or  liabilities,  or  concessions 
or  privileges  to  other  Governments,  corporations,  syndicates  or  indi- 
viduals, and  consequently,  if  there  should  arise  any  claims  on  account 
of  the  present  concessions  and  privileges  or  otherwise,  the  claimants 
shall  resort  to  the  Government  of  the  Republic  of  Panama  and  not 
to  the  United  States  for  any  indemnity  or  compromise  which  may  be 
required. 

Article  XXII. 

The  Republic  of  Panama  renounces  and  grants  to  the  United 
States  the  participation  to  which  it  might  be  entitled  in  the  future 
earnings  of  the  Canal  under  Article  XV  of  the  concessionary  con- 
tract with  Lucien  X.  B.  Wyse  now  owned  by  the  New  Panama  Canal 
Company  and   any   and   all   other  rights  or  claims  of  a  pecuniary 


302  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE   PANAMA    CANAL. 

nature  arising  under  or  relating  to  said  concession,  or  arising  under 
or  relating  to  the  concessions  to  the  Panama  Railroad  Company  or 
any  extension  or  modification  thereof;  and  it  likewise  renounces, 
confirms  and  grants  to  the  United  States,  now  and  hereafter,  all 
the  rights  and  property  reserved  in  the  said  concessions  which  other- 
wise would  belong  to  Panama  at  or  before  the  expiration  of  the  terms 
of  ninety-nine  years  of  the  concessions  granted  to  or  held  by  the 
above  mentioned  party  and  companies,  and  all  right,  title  and  inter- 
est which  it  now  has  or  may  hereafter  have,  in  and  to  the  lands, 
canal,  works,  propert}-  and  rights  held  by  the  said  companies  under 
said  concessions  or  otherwise,  and  acquired  or  to  be  acquired  by  the 
United  States  from  or  through  the  New  Panama  Canal  Company, 
including  any  property  and  rights  which  might  or  may  in  the  future 
either  by  lapse  of  time,  forfeiture  or  otherwise,  revert  to  the  Eepublic 
of  Panama  under  any  contracts  or  concessions,  with  said  Wyse,  the 
Universal  Panama  Canal  Company,  the  Panama  Railroad  Company 
and  the  New  Panama  Canal  Company. 

The  aforesaid  rights  and  property  shall  be  and  are  free  and  re- 
leased from  any  present  or  reversionary  interest  in  or  claims  of 
Panama  and  the  title  of  the  United  States  thereto  upon  consumma- 
tion of  the  contemplated  purchase  by  the  United  States  from  the 
New  Panama  Canal  Company,  shall  be  absolute,  so  far  as  concerns 
the  Republic  of  Panama,  excepting  always  the  rights  of  the  Republic 
specifically  secured  under  this  treaty. 

Article  XXIII. 

If  it  should  become  necessary  at  any  time  to  employ  armed  forces 
for  the  safety  or  protection  of  the  Canal,  or  of  the  ships  that  make 
use  of  the  same,  fir  the  railways  and  auxiliary  works,  the  United 
States  shall  have  the  right,  at  all  times  and  in  its  discretion,  to  use 
its  police  and  its  land  and  naval  forces  or  to  establish  fortifications 
for  these  purposes. 

Article  XXIV. 

No  change  either  in  the  Government  or  in  the  laws  and  treaties  of 
the  Republic  of  Panama  shall,  without  the  consent  of  the  United 
States,  affect  any  right  of  the  United  States  under  the  present  con- 
vention, or  under  any  treaty  stipulation  between  the  two  countries 
that  now  exists  or  may  hereafter  exist  touching  the  subject  matter 
of  this  convention. 

If  the  Republic  of  Panama  shall  hereafter  enter  as  a  constituent 
into  any  other  Government  or  into  any  union  or  confederation  of 
states,  so  as  to  merge  her  sovereignty  or  independence  in  such  Gov- 
ernment, union  or  confederation,  the  rights  of  the  United  States 
under  this  convention  shall  not  be  in  any  respect  lessened  or  impaired. 

Article  XXV. 

For  the  better  performance  of  the  engagements  of  this  convention 
and  to  the  end  of  the  efficient  protection  of  the  Canal  and  the  preser- 
vation of  its  neutrality,  the  Government  of  the  Republic  of  Panama 
will  sell  or  lease  to  the  United  States  lands  adequate  and  necessary 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  303 

for  naval  or  coaling  stations  on  the  Pacific  coast  and  on  the  western 
Caribbean  coast  of  the  Republic  at  certain  points  to  be  agreed  upon 
with  the  President  of  the  United  States. 

Article  XXVI. 

This  convention  when  signed  by  the  Plenipotentiaries  of  the  Con- 
tracting Parties  shall  be  ratified  by  the  respective  Governments  and 
the  ratifications  shall  be  exchanged  at  Washington  at  the  earliest 
date  possible. 

In  faith  whereof  the  respective  Plenipotentiaries  have  signed  the 
present  convention  in  duplicate  and  have  hereunto  affixed  their 
respective  seals. 

Done  at  the  City  of  Washington  the  18th  day  of  November  in 
the  year  of  our  Lord  nineteen  hundred  and  three. 

John   Hat  [seal] 

P.  Bunau  Varilla     [seal] 

And  whereas  the  said  Convention  has  been  duly  ratified  on  both 
parts,  and  the  ratifications  of  the  two  governments  were  exchanged 
in  the  City  of  Washington,  on  the  twenty-sixth  day  of  February,  one 
thousand  nine  hundred  and  four ; 

Now,  therefore,  be  it  known  that  I,  Theodore  Roosevelt,  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States  of  America,  have  caused  the  said  Conven- 
tion to  be  made  public,  to  the  end  that  the  same  and  every  article 
and  clause  thereof,  may  be  observed  and  fulfilled  with  good  faith  by 
the  United  States  and  the  citizens  thereof. 

In  testimony  whereof,  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  caused 
the  seal  of  the  United  States  of  America  to  be  affixed. 

Done  at  the  City  of  Washington,  this  twenty-sixth  day  of  Febru- 
ary, in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  nine  hundred 
[seal]     and  four,  and  of  the  Independence  of  the  United  States 
the  one  hundred  and  twenty-eighth. 

Theodore  Roosevelt 
By  the  President: 

John  Hay 
Secretary  of  State. 


Legacion  de  la  Republica  de 

Panama  en  Washington, 
Washington,  D.  C,  February  18, 1904- 
His  Excellency  John  Hay, 

Secretary  of  State,  etc.,  W ashington,  D.  G . 
Sirs  I  have  the  honor  of  acknowledging  the  receipt  of  your  com- 
munication, No.  23,  of  January  30th,  1904,  m  which  you  express  to  me 
certain  observations  about  the  translation  of  the  treaty  of  November 
18th,  1903,  contained  in  the  decree  ratifying  the  Treaty. 

I  accept  in  the  name  of  the  Government  of  the  Republic  what  you 
propose  in  said  letter,  which  reads  as  follows : 

"  Sir  :  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  note  of 
the  9th  instant,  transmitting  a  copy  of  the  decree  ratifying  the  treaty 
of  November  18, 1903.  and  containing  its  text  in  the  Spanish  language. 


304  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA   CANAL. 

*:  In  reply  to  your  request  to  be  notified  *  in  case  the  translation 
is  in  every  respect  satisfactory,'  I  have  the  honor  to  invite  your 
attention  to  a  few  omissions,  as  follows: 

"  1.  In  Article  VIII,  line  4,  of  page  6  of  the  translation,  the 
words  '  a  la  Repiiblica  de  Panama,'  after  ;  traspaso  de  soberania  de 
la  Repiiblica  de  Colombia,'  should  be  added. 

"  2.  In  the  same  article,  last  line  of  the  article,  the  word  '  6 '  should 
be  inserted  between  '  puertos '  and  '  terminales.' 

"  3.  In  Article  IX,  last  line  but  two  in  the  second  paragraph  of 
the  article  on  page  7,  the  words  '  cargar,  descargar,  almacenar  y,' 
omitted  from  the  English  text  should  come  before  the  words  '  tras- 
bordar  cargas.' 

"4.  In  article  XXII,  page  11,  line  2  of  the  last  paragraph,  the 
words  '  present  or '  in  the  English  text  have  been  omitted,  and 
should  be  represented  by  the  words  '  6  actuales '  placed  in  the  Span- 
ish text  after  the  words  '  derechos  de  reversion.' 

"  In  regard  to  the  exact  equivalence  of  words  in  both  languages,  I 
have  to  indicate  the  following  changes  which  appear  to  be  necessary : 

"1.  In  Article  VII,  line  2  of  page  5,  the  word  '  puertos '  should 
be  used  instead  of  '  bahias  '  for  the  English  word  '  harbors.' 

"  2.  In  Article  IX,  line  4  of  the  article,  page  6  of  the  copy  sub- 
mitted by  you,  the  words  '  custom-house  tolls '  have  been  rendered 
into  '  derechos  de  aduana,'  which  are  understood  to  mean  duties 
collected  on  merchandise  entered  for  actual  consumption  in  the 
country.     It  is  believed  that  the  word  '  peajes '  would  be  preferable. 

"  3.  In  article  XIII,  line  2  of  page  8,  the  English  word  '  lands '  has 
been  translated  '  obras,'  for  which  '  terrenos '  should  obviously  be 
substituted. 

;'  There  are  a  number  of  other  words  the  accurate  meaning  of  which 
may  give  rise  to  a  difference  of  interpretation,  but  inasmuch  as  there 
could  be  no  other  difficulty  in  connection  with  the  said  words,  and  in 
view  of  the  fact  that  the  Spanish  text  has  already  been  formally  ap- 
proved by  your  Government,  the  necessity  of  making  further  changes 
therein  will  be  obviated  by  your  official  statement  that  the  English 
text  shall  prevail  in  case  of  such  difference  of  interpretation. 

"Accept,  Mr.  Minister,  the  renewed  assurances  of  my  highest  con- 
sideration. 

•'Francis  B.  Loomis, 

"Acting  Secretary." 

I  am,  sir.  with  great  respect,  your  very  obedient  servant, 

P.  Bunau  Vauilla. 


Decreto  Xumero  24  de  1903  (de  2  de  Diciembre),  poh  el  cual  se 
Aprueba  ux  Tratado  con  los  Estados  Unidos  de  Norte  America. 

La  junta  de  gobierno  provisional  de  la  Repiiblica  de  Panama, 
Por  cuanto  se  ha  celebrado  entre  el  Enviado  Extraordinario  y 
Ministro  Plenipotenciario  de  la  Repiiblica   acreditado  ante  el  Go- 
bierno de  los  Estados  Unidos  de  America,  y  el  Senor  Secretario  de 
Estado  de  aquella  Nacion  iin  tratado  que  copiado  a  la  letra  dice  asi : 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CAXAL.  305 

CONVENCION  DE  CAXAL  A  TRAVES  DEL  ISTMO. 

Los  Estados  Unidos  de  America  y  la  Repiiblica  de  Panama,  dese- 
osos  de  asegurar  la  construccion  de  un  Canal  para  naves  a  traves 
del  Istmo  de  Panama  para  comunicar  los  oceanos  Atlantico  y  Pacifico 
y  habiendo  expedido  el  Congreso  de  los  Estados  Unidos  de  America 
una  ley  aprobada  el  28  de  Junio  de  1902  en  prosecucion  de  aquel 
objeto  por  la  cual  se  autoriza  al  Presidente  de  los  Estados  Unidos 
para  adquirir  de  la  Repiiblica  de  Colombia  dentro  de  un  plazo 
razonable  el  control  del  territorio  necesario  y  perteneciendo  actual- 
mente  la  soberania  de  ese  territorio  a  la  Repiiblica  de  Panama,  las 
altas  partes  contratantes  han  resuelto  con  ese  proposito  concluir 
una  convencion  y  han  designado  de  conformidad  corao  sus  Plenipo- 
tenciarios, 

El  Presidente  de  los  Estados  Unidos  de  America  a  John  Hay, 
Secretario  de  Estado,  y 

El  Gobierno  de  la  Republica  de  Panama  a  Philippe  Bunau-Varilla, 
Enviado  Extraordinario  y  Ministro  Plenipotenciario  de  la  Republica 
de  Panama,  para  ello  especialmente  facultado  por  dicho  Gobierno, 
quienes  despues  de  haberse  comunicado  reciprocamente  sus  respec- 
tivos  plenos  poderes  y  de  haberlos  ha^yado  en  buena  y  debida  forma, 
han  convenido  y  concluido  los  siguientes  articulos: — 

ARTfcULO    I. 

Los  Estados  Unidos  garantizan  y  mantendran  la  Independencia 
de  la  Republica  de  Panama. 

Articulo  II. 

/  La  Republica  de  Panama  concede  a  perpetuidad  a  los  Estados 
Unidos  el  uso,  ocupacion  y  control  de  una  zona  de  tierra  y  de  tierra 
cubierta  por  agua,  para  la  construccion.  conservacion,  servicio, 
sanidad  y  proteccion  de  dicho  Canal,  zona  de  una  anchura  de  diez 
millas  que  se  extenders*  cinco  millas  a  cada  lado  de  la  linea  central 
del  Canal  que  se  va  a  construir,  principiando  dicha  zona  a  tres  millas 
de  la  linea  media  de  la  baja  mar  en  el  mar  Caribe,  extendiendose  a 
traves  del  Istmo  y  terminando  en  el  oceano  Pacifico  a  tres  millas  de 
distancia  de  la  linea  media  de  la  baja  mar,  con  la  condicion  de  que 
las  ciudades  de  Panama  y  Colon  y  los  puertos  adyacentes  a  dichas 
ciudades  que  estan  incluidos  dentro  de  los  limites  de  la  zona  descrita 
no  quedaran  comprendidos  en  esta  concesion.  La  Repiiblica  de 
Panama  concede  adenitis  a  perpetuidad  a  los  Estados  Unidos  el  uso, 
ocupacion  y  control  de  otras  tierras  y  aguas  fuera  de  la  zona  arriba 
descrita  que  puedan  ser  necesarias  y  convenieutes  para  la  construc- 
tion, conservacion,  servicio,  sanidad  y  proteccion  de  dicha  empresa. 
La  Republica  de  Panama  concede  tambien  del  mismo  modo  y  a 
perpetuidad  a  los  Estados  Unidos  todas  las  islas  <me  se  encuentren 
dentro  de  los  limites  de  la  zona  y  descrita  y  ademas  el  grupo  de 
pecjuenas  islas  situadas  en  la  bahia  de  Panama  y  conocidas  con  los 
aombres  de  Naos.  Perico.  Culebra  y  Flamenco. 

421 12— S.  Doc-.  474.  G3-2 20 


306  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL. 

Articulo  III. 


L 


ia  Republica  de  Panama  concede  a  los  Estados  Unidos  todos  los 
derechos,  poder  y  autoridad  en  la  zona  mencionada  y  descrita  en  el 
articulo  II  de  este  convenio  y  dentro  de  los  limites  de  todas  las  tie- 
rras  y  aguas  auxiliares  mencionadas  y  descritas  en  dicho  articulo  II 
las  cuales  poseeran  y  ejercitaran  los  Estados  Unidos  como  si  fuesen 
soberanos  del  territorio  en  que  dichas  tierras  y  aguas  se  encuentran 
situadas,  con  entera  exclusion  de  la  Republica  de  Panama  en  el 
ejercicio  de  tales  derechos  soberanos.  poder  6  autoridad. 

Articulo  IV. 

.Como  derechos  subsidiaries  de  las  concesiones  que  anteceden  la 
Republica  de  Panama  concede  a  perpetuidad  a  los  Estados  Unidos 
el  derecho  de  usar  los  rios.  riachuelos.  lagos  y  otras  aguas  dentro  de 
sus  limites  para  la  navegacion,  provision  de  agua  6  agua  para  fuerza 
motriz  u  otros  objetos,  en  cuanto  el  uso  de  tales  rios,  riachuelos  y 
aguas  puedan  ser  necesarios  y  convenientes  para  la  construction, 
conservacion,  servicio.  sanidad  y  proteccion  del  dicho  Canal. 

Articulo  V. 

La  Republica  de  Panama  concede  a  los  Estados  Unidos  a  perpe- 
tuidad el  monopolio  para  la  construccion,  conservacion  y  servicio  de 
cualquier  sistema  de  comunicacion  per  medio  de  Canal  6  ferrocarril 
a  traves  de  su  territorio  entre  el  mar  Caribe  y  el  oceano  Pacifico. 

Articulo  VI. 

Las  concesiones  que  aqui  se  expresan  de  ninguna  manera  invali- 
daran  los  titulos  de  derecho  de  los  ocupantes  de  tierras  6  duehos  de 
propiedad  particular  en  la  referida  zona.  6  en  cualquiera  de  las 
tierras  6  aguas  concedidas  a  los  Estados  Unidos  segun  las  provi- 
siones  de  cualquier  articulo  de  este  tratado,  ni  tampoco  se  opondran 
a  los  derechos  de  transito  por  las  vias  piiblicas  que  pasen  a  traves 
de  la  referida  zona  6  por  cuahjuiera  de  dichas  tierras  6  aguas  a 
menos  que  esos  derechos  de  transito  6  derechos  particulares  se  hallen 
en  cinflicto  con  los  derechos  que  aqui  se  le  conceden  a  los  Estados 
Unidos,  caso  en  el  cual  los  derechos  de  los  Estados  Unidos  seran  de 
mayor  valor.  Todos  los  dahos  que  se  causen  a  los  duenos  de  tierras 
6  de  propiedades  particulares  de  cualquiera  clase  que  sean.  a  causa 
de  las  concesiones  que  contiene  este  tratado  6  por  causa  de  las  obras 
que  se  efectuen  por  los  Estados  Unidos.  por  sus  agentes  6  sus  em- 
pleados.  6  debido  a  la  construccion.  conservacion,  servicio.  sanidad  y 
proteccion  de  dicho  Canal  6  de  las  obras  de  saneamiento  y  proteccion 
de  que  aqui  se  hace  merito.  seran  valorados  y  arreglados  por  una 
comision  mixta  que  se  nombrara*  por  los  Gobiernos  de  los  P^stados 
Unidos  y  de  la  Republica  de  Panama,  y  cuyas  decisiones  con  respecto 
a  danos  seran  finales,  y  cuyos  avaliios  seran  cubiertos  solamente  por 
los  Estados  Unidos.  Ninguna  parte  de  los  trabajos  del  Canal  6  del 
Ferrocarril  de  Panama,  ni  ninguna  de  las  obras  auxiliares  que  a  estos 
se  refieran  y  autorizadas  por  los  terminos  de  este  tratado.  sera  im- 
pedida,  demorada   ni  estorbada   mientras  esten  i)endientes  los  pro- 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL.  307 

cedimientos  para  averiguar  dichos  daiios.  La  apreciacion  de  esas 
tierras  6  propiedades  particulares  y  el  avaluo  de  los  daiios  a  ellas 
causados  tendran  por  base  el  valor  que  tenian  antes  de  celebrarse 
este  tratado. 

Articulo  VII. 

La  Republica  de  Panama  concede  a  los  Est  ados  Unidos,  dentro  de 
los  i  unites  de  las  ciudades  de  Panama  y  Colon  y  de  sus  bahias  y 
territories  adyacentes,  el  derecho  de  adquirirpor  compra  6  en  ejercicio 
del  derecho  de  dominio  eminente,  las  tierras,  edificios,  derechos  de 
aguas  u  otras  propiedades  necesarias  y  conveniences  para  la  con- 
struction, conservacion,  servicio  y  proteccion  del  Canal  u  otras  obras 
de  saneamiento  tales  como  el  recogimiento  y  disposicion  de  desper- 
dicios  y  la  distribucion  de  agua  en  las  referidas  ciudades  de  Panama 
y  Colon,  y  que  a  juicio  de  los  Estados  Unidos  sean  necesarios  y  con- 
venientes para  la  construccion,  conservacion.  servicio,  saneamiento 
y  proteccion  de  dicho  Canal  y  del  Ferrocarnl.  Todas  las  obras  de 
sanidad,  coleccion  y  distribucion  de  desperdicios  asi  como  la  distri- 
bucion de  aguas  en  las  ciudades  de  Panama  y  Colon  se  ejecutaran 
por  los  Estados  Unidos  y  a  su  costo.  y  el  Gobierno  de  los  Estados 
Unidos,  sus  agentes  y  representantes  tendran  autoridad  para  imponer 
y  cobrar  tarifas  de  agua  y  de  alcantarillado  que  sean  suficientes  para 
proveer  al  pago  de  los  intereses  y  a  la  amortization  del  capital  del 
costo  de  esas  obras  dentro  del  termino  de  cincuenta  alios;  y  al 
expirar  esos  cincuenta  anos  el  alcantarillado  y  el  acueducto  vendran 
a  ser  propiedad  de  las  ciudades  de  Panama  y  Colon,  respectivamente, 
y  el  uso  del  agua  sera  libre  para  los  habitantes  de  Panama  y  Colon, 
excepto  en  cuanto  la  contribucion  de  agua  sea  necesaria  para  el 
servicio  y  conservacion  de  dicho  sistema  de  albaiiales  y  acueducto. 

La  Republica  de  Panama  conviene  en  que  las  ciudades  de  Panama 
y  Colon  cumpliran  a  perpetuidad  las  disposiciones  sanitarias  de 
earacter  preventivo  6  curativo  dictadas  por  los  Estados  Unidos  y  si 
llega  el  caso  de  que  el  Gobierno  de  Panama  no  pueda  6  falte  a  su 
deber  de  hacer  que  se  cumplan  tales  deposiciones  en  Panama  y 
Colon,  la  Republica  de  Panama  concede  a  los  Estados  Unidos  el 
derecho  y  la  autoridad  de  ponerlas  en  vigor.  El  mismo  derecho  y 
la  misma  autoridad  se  concede  a  los  Estados  Unidos  para  el  man- 
tenimiento  del  orden  publico  en  las  ciudades  de  Panama  y  Colon  y 
sus  territorios  y  bahias  adyacentes  en  caso  de  que,  a  juicio  de  los 
Estados  Unidos,  la  Republica  de  Panama  no  pueda  mantenerlo. 

Articulo  VIII. 

La  Republica  de  Panama  concede  a  los  Estados  Unidos  todos  los 
derechos  que  hoy  tiene  y  que  mas  tarde  pueda  adquirir  sobre  las 
propiedades  de  la  Compania  Nueva  del  Canal  de  Panama  y  la  Com- 
pahia  del  Ferrocarril,  como  resultado  del  traspaso  de  soberania  de 
la  Republica  de  Colombia  sobre  el  Istmo  de  Panama  y  autoriza  a  la 
Compania  Nueva  del  Canal  de  Panama  para  vender  y  traspasar  a 
los  Estados  Unidos  sus  derechos,  privilegios,  propiedades  y  con- 
cesiones,  como  tambien  el  Ferrocarril  de  Panama,  y  todas  las 
acciones  6  parte  de  las  acciones  de  dicha  Compania,  pero  las  tierras 
piiblicas  situadas  fuera  de  la  zona  descrita  en  el  articulo  II  de  este 
tratado,  actualmente  incluidas  en  las  concesiones  a  ambas  de  las  ex- 


308  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

presadas  Companias  y  que  no  sean  necesarias  para  la  const ruecidn  y 
servicio  del  Canal,  volveran  a  poder  de  la  Republica  con  excepcion  de 
aquellas  propiedades  que  ahora  pertenecen  a  6  estan  en  posesion  de 
dichas  Companias  e.n  Panama  6  Colon  6  en  los  puertos  terminates 
de  estas. 

Articflo  IX. 

Los  Estados  Unidos  convienen  en  que  los  puertos  en  ambas 
entradas  del  Canal  y  aguas  de  estas,  y  la  Republica  de  Panama  con- 
viene  en  que  las  poblaciones  de  Panama  y  Colon  sean  libres  en  todo 
tiempo  de  modo  que  en  ellos  no  se  impondra  ni  cobraran  derechos 
de  aduana,  tonelaje,  anclaje,  faros,  muelles,  pilotaje  6  cuarentena  ni 
ninguna  otra  contribucion  6  derecho  sobre  las  naves  que  usen  6  que 
pasen  por  el  Canal  6  que  pertenezcan  a  los  Estados  Unidos  6  que 
sean  empleados  por  ellos  directa  6  indirectamente  en  conexion  con  la 
construccion,  mantenimiento,  servicio,  saneamiento  y  proteccion 
del  Canal  principal  u  obras  auxiliaries  6  sobre  la  carga,  oficiales, 
tripulacion  6  pasajeros  de  ninguna  de  las  dichas  naves,  excepto  los 
derechos  e  impuestos  que  establezcan  los  Estados  Unidos  por  el  uso 
del  Canal  u  otras  obras  y  excepto  los  derechos  e  impuestos  que 
establezca  la  Republica  de  Panama  sobre  las  mercancias  destinadas 
a  ser  introducidas  para  el  consumo  del  resto  de  la  Repiiblica  de 
Panama  y  sobre  los  buques  que  toquen  en  los  puertos  de  Panama  y 
Colon  y  que  no  crucen  el  Canal. 

El  Gobiefno  de  la  Republica  de  Panama  tendra  el  derecho  de 
establecer  en  dichos  puertos  y  en  las  ciudades  de  Panama  y  Colon 
los  edificios  y  vigilaneia  que  crea  necesarios  para  el  cobro  de  dere- 
chos sobre  importaciones  destinadas  a  otras  partes  de  Panama  y 
para  impedir  los  contrabandos.  Los  Estados  Unidos  tendran  el 
derecho  de  hacer  uso  de  las  poblaciones  y  pnertos  de  Panama  y 
Colon  como  Lugares  de  anclaje  y  para  hacer  reparaciones,  trasboi-dar 
cargas  ya  sean  de  transito  6  destinadas  al  servicio  de  Canal  6  para 
otros  trabajos  que  pettenezcan  al  Canal. 

Articulo  X. 

La  Rej)ublica  de  Panama  se  obliga  a  no  imponer  contribuciones 
de  ninguna  clase,  ya  sean  nacionales,  municipales  6  departamentales 
sobre  el  Canal,  los  ferrocarriles  y  obras  auxiliaries,  remolcadores, 
naves  empleadas  en  el  servicio  de  Canal,  depositos,  talleres,  oficinas, 
habitaciones  para  obreros,  fabricas  de  todas  clases,  almacenes, 
muelles,  maqiunaria  y  demas  obras,  ;i  siis  oficiales  6  empleados  que 
se  encuentren  dentro  de  las  ciudades  de  Panama  y  Colon;  y  a  no 
establecer  contribuciones  6  impuestos  de  caracter  personal  de  nin- 
guna clase  que  deban  pagar  los  oficiales.  empleados,  obreros  y  demas 
individuos  al  servicio  del  '  'anal  y  ferrocarriles  y  obras  auxiliares. 

Articulo  XI. 

Lh-  Est.id* .->  Unidos  se  obligan  a  trasmitii^  los  despachos  oficales 
del  Gobierno  de  la  Republica  de  Panama  por  las  lineas  telcgraficas 
y  telefonioas  establecidas  para  el  Canal  y  usadas  para  negocios 
piiblicos  y  privado^  a  pfecios  no  mayores  que  los  exigidos  de  los 
empleados  a!   servicio  de  los  Estados  Unidos. 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OP    THE    PANAMA    CANAL.  309 

AuTlVl  I.o    XII. 

El  Gobierno  de  la  Republica  de  Panama  permitira  hi  iminigracion 
y  libre  acceso  a  las  tierrae  y  talleres  del  Canal  y  a  sus  obras  auxiliares 
de  todos  1<is  empleados  y  obreros  de  eualquiera  nacionalidad  bajo 
contrato  de  trabajar  en  el  Canal  6  que  busquen  empleo  en  el  6  que 
esten  relacionados  con  el  dicho  Canal  y  obras  auxiliares,  con  sus 
respectivas  familias  y  todaa  estas  personas  estaran  libres  del  servicio 
militar  de  la  Republica  de  Panama. 

Akticilo  XIII. 

Los  Estados  Unidos  podran  importar  en  cualquier  tiempo  a  dicha 
zona  y  obras  auxiliares,  libres  de  dereclios  die  aduana,  impuestos, 
contribuciones  y  gravamenes  de  otra  clase  y  sin  ninguna  restriction, 
toda  clase  de  naves,  dragas.  maquinas.  carros,  maquinarias.  instru- 
mentos,  explosivos,  materiales,  abastos  y  otros  articulos  necesarios 
y  convenientes  para  la  construction,  conservation,  servicio,  sanidad  y 
protection  del  Canal  y  de  sus  obras  auxiliares.  y  todas  las  provi- 
siones,  medicinas,  vestidos.  abastos  y  otras  cosas  necesarias  y  con- 
venientes para  los  oficiales,  empleados.  obreros  y  jornaleros  al  servicio 
y  en  el  empleo  de  los  Estados  Unidos  y  para  sus  familias.  Si  de 
algunos  de  esos  articulos  se  dispone  y  se  hace  uso  fuera  de  la  zona 
y  de  las  tierras  accesorias  concedidas  a  los  Estados  Unidos  y  dentro 
del  territorio  de  la  Republica.  quedaran  sujetos  a  los  mismos  im- 
puestos de  importation  u*  otros  dereclios  a  que  lo  estan  iguales  arti- 
culos import  ados  bajo  las  leyes  de  la  Republica  de  Panama. 

Aeticulo  XIV. 

Como  precio  6  compensation  por  los  dereclios.  poder  y  privi- 
leges concedidos  en  esta  convention  por  la  Republica  de  Panama 
a  los  Estados  Unidos,  el  Gobierno  de  los  Estados  Unidos  se  obliga 
a  pargar  a  la  Republica  de  Panama  la  suma  de  diez  millones  de 
dollars  ($10,000,000.00)  en  oro  amonedado  de  los  Estados  Unidos 
al  efectuarse  el  canje  de  la  ratification  de  este  convenio  y  tainbien 
un  pago  anual  de  doscientos  cincuenta  mil  dollars  ($250,000.00)  en  la 
misma  moneda  de  oro  durante  la  vida  de  esta  convencion,  princi- 
piando  nueve  afios  despues  de  la  fecha  antes  expresada. 

Las  provisiones  de  este  articulo  seran  en  adicion  a  todos  los 
demas  beneficios  asegurados  a  la  Republica  de  Panama  en  esta  con- 
vencion. /Pero  ninguna  demora  6  diferencia  de  opiniones  respecto 
de  este  articulo  6  de  otras  estipulaciones  de  estes  tratado  afectara  6 
interrumpira  la  completa  execution  y  efectos  de  esta  convencion  en 
todos  los  demas  respectos. 

Articulo  XV. 

La  Comision  mixta  a  que  se  refiere  el  articulo  VI  se  establecera 
como  sigue: 

YA  Presidente  de  los  Estados  Unidos  nombrara  dos  personas  y  el 
Presidente  de  la  Republica  de  Panama  nombrara  dos  personas  y 
ellas  procederan  a  dictar  una  decision;  pero  en  caso  de  desacuerdo 
ile  la  Comision  (con  motive  de  estar  igualmente  divididas  sus  coii- 


310  DIPLOMATIC    EISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA   CANAL. 

clusiones)  se  nombrara  por  los  dos  Gobiernos  un  dirimente  que  dic- 
tara  su  decision.  En  caso  de  muerte,  ausencia  6  incapacidad  de  un 
miembro  de  la  comisio  6  del  dirimente,  6  en  caso  de  omision  excusa 
6  cesacion  de  actuar,  su  puesto  sera  lleuado  por  nombramiento  de 
otra  persona  del  modo  antes  indicado.  Todas  las  decisiones  dicta- 
das  por  la  mayoria  de  la  Comision  6  por  el  dirimente  seran  finales. 

Articulo  XVI. 

Los  dos  Gobiernos  proveeran  de  modo  adecuado  por  un  arreglo 
futuro  a,  la  persecucion,  captura,  prision,  detencion  y  entrega  en 
dicha  zona  y  tierras  accesorias  a  las  autoridades  de  la  Repiiblica  de 
Panama  de  las  personas  acusadas  de  la  comision  de  crimenes,  deli- 
tos  6  faltas  fuera  de  dicha  zona,  y  para  la  persecution,  captura, 
prision,  detencion  y  entrega  fuera  de  dicha  zona  a,  las  autoridades  de 
los  Estados  Unidos  de  personas  acusadas  de  la  comision  de  crimenes, 
delitos  6  faltas  en  la  zona  mencionada  y  sus  tierras  accesorias. 

Articulo  XVI  I. 

La  Repiiblica  de  Panama  concede  a  los  Estados  Unidos  el  uso  de 
todos  los  puertos  de  la  Repiiblica  abiertos  al  comercio,  como  lugares 
de  refugio  para  todas  las  naves  empleadas  en  la  Empresa  del  Canal 
y  para  todas  aquellas  que  hallandose  en  las  mismas  circunstancias 
de  arribada  forzosa  vayan  destinadas  a  atravesar  el  Canal  y  necesiten 
anclar  en  dichos  puertos.  Esas  naves  estaran  exentas  de  derechos 
de  anelaje  y  tonelaje  por  parte  de  la  Repiiblica  de  Panama. 

Articulo  XVIII. 

El  Canal,  una  vez  construido,  y  las  entradas  a  el  seran  neutrales 
perpetuamente  y  estaran  abiertas  en  los  terminos  de  la  seccion  I  del 
articulo  tercero  del  tratado  celebrado  entre  los  Estados  Unidos  y  la 
Gran  Bretana  el  18  de  Noviembre  de  1901  y  de  conformidad  con  las 
estipulaciones  de  este  tratado. 

Articulo  XIX. 

El  Gobierno  de  ka  Repiiblica  de  Panama  tendra  el  derecho  de 
transportar  por  el  Canal  sus  naves,  tropas  y  elementos  de  guerra  en 
esas  naves  en  todo  tiempo  sin  pagar  derechos  de  ninguna  clase.  Esta 
excencion  se  exliende  al  Ferroearril  auxiliar  para  el  trasporte  de 
las  personas  al  servicio  de  la  Repiiblica  de  Panama  y  de  la  fuerza 
de  policia  encargada  ie  guardar  el  orden  publico  fuera  de  la  dioha 
zona,  asi  como  para  sus  equipajes  pertrechos  y  provisiones. 

Articulo  XX. 

Si  en  virtud  de  algun  tratado  existente  en  relacion  eon  el  territorio 
del  Istmo  de  Panama,  cuyas  obligaciones  corresponden  6  scan  asu- 
midas  por  la  Repiiblica  de  Panama,  existieren  algunos  privilegios  6 
concesiones  en  favor  del  Bobierno  6  de  los  ciudadanos  y  subditos  de 
una  tercera  potencia,  relativos  a  una  via  de  comunicacion  intero- 
ceani^-'.  que  en  alguna  de  sus  estipulaciones  puedan  ser  incompati- 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL.  311 

bles  con  los  terminos  cle  la  presente  corn'encion,  la  Repiiblica  de 
Panama  se  obliga  a  cancelar  6  modificar  tal  tratado  en  debida  forma 
para  lo  cual  le  dara  al  dicho  tercer  poder  la  necesaria  notificacion 
dentro  del  termino  de  cuatro  meses  desde  la  fecha  de  esta  conven- 
cion,  y  en  caso  de  que  el  tratado  existente  no  contenga  clausula  que 
permita  su  modificacion  6  anulacion,  la  Repiiblica  de  Panama  se 
obliga  a  procurar  su  modificacion  6  anulacion  en  tal  forma  que  no 
exist  a  conflicto  con  las  estipulaciones  de  la  presente  convencion. 

Articulo>  XXI. 

Los  derechos  y  privilegios  concedidos  por  la  Republico  de  Panama 
a  los  Estados  Unidos  en  los  articulos  precedentes  se  entiende  que 
estan  libres  de  toda  deuda,  limitacion,  enfiteusis  6  responsabilided 
anterior.  6  de  concesiones  6  privilegios  a  otros  Gobiernos,  corpora- 
ciones,  sindicatos  e  individuos,  y  en  consecuencial  si  surgieren  algunos 
reclamos  con  motivo  de  las  presentes  concesiones  y  privilegios  6  de 
otro  modo  los  reclamantes  se  dirigiran  contral  ]a  Repiiblica  de  Panma 
y  no  contra  los  Estados  Unidos  para  obtener  la  indemnizacion  6  el 
arreglo  que  pueda  ser  del  caso. 

Articulo  XXII. 

La  Repiiblica  de  Panama  renuncia  y  concede  a  los  Estados  Unidos 
la  participacion  a  que  puede  tener  derecho  en  los  futuros  productos 
del  Canal  fijada  en  el  articulo  XV  del  Contrato  de  concesion  cele- 
brado  con  Lucien  N.  B.  Wyse  del  cual  hoy  es  dueiio  la  Compaiiia 
Nueva  del  Canal  de  Panama  y  a  cualesquiera  otros  derechos  6  re- 
clamos de  naturaleza  pecuniaria  que  pudieran  originarse  de  esa  con- 
cesion 6  relativos  a  ella  6  que  pudieran  surgir  de  las  concesiones  a 
la  Compaiiia  del  Ferrocarril  de  Panama  6  relativas  a  ellas,  6  a 
algunas  de  sus  modificacicnes  6  prorrogas;  y  del  mismo  modo 
renuncia.  confirma  y  concede  a  los  Estados  Unidos  desde  ahora  y 
para  el  futuro  todos  los  derechos  y  propiedades  reservadas  en  las 
mencionadas  concesiones  y  que  de  otro  modo  habrian  de  correspon- 
derle  a  Panama  antes  6  a  la  expiracion  de  los  terminos  de  noventa 
y  nueve  ailos  de  las  concesiones  otcrgadas,  al  interesado  y  a  las  Com- 
panias  arriba  mencionadas  y  todo  derecho,  titulo  y  participacion 
que  ahora  tenga  y  que  en  lo  futuro  pueda  corresponderle  en  las  tie- 
rras  en  el  Canal,  en  las  obras  propiedades  y  derechos  pertenecientes 
a  dichas  compahias  en  virtud  de  las  citadas  concesiones  6  de  otra 
manera,  y  los  que  los  Estados  Unidos  hayan  adquirido  <i  adquieran 
de  la  Compania  Nueva  del  Canal  de  Panama  6  por  su  conducto 
incluyendo  cualesquiera  propiedades  6  derechos  que  en  lo  futuro 
pudieren  corresponderle  a  la  Repiiblica  de  Panama  en  virtud  del 
trascurso  del  tiempo  cle  caducidad  6  de  otra  manera.  en  virtud  de 
reversion  segiin  los  contratos  6  concesiones  con  dicho  Wyse,  la  Com- 
pania Universal  del  Canal  de  Panama,  la  Compaiiia  del  Ferrocarril 
de  Panama  y  la  Compania  nueva  del  Canal  de  Panama. 

Los  arriba  mencionados  derechos  y  propiedades  quedaran  libres 
de  todos  los  derechos  de  reversion  que  pueda  tener  Panama  y  el 
titulo  de  los  Estados  Unidos,  cuando  se  efectiie  la  compra  proyec- 
tada  a  la  Compania  Xueva  del  Canal  de  Panama,  sera  absoluto  en 


312  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

cuanto  toca  a  la  Republics  de  Panama,  except  uandose  siempre  los 
derechos  de  la  Republica  expresamente  asegurados  en  este  tratado. 

Artici  lo  XXIII. 

Si  en  algiin  tiempo  fuere  necesario  el  empleo  de  fnerzas  armada3 
para  la  segnridad  y  proteccion  del  Canal  6  de  las  naves  que  lo  usen, 
6  de  los  ferrocarriles  y  obras  auxiliares,  los  Estados  Unidos  tendran 
el  derecho  en  todo  tiempo  y  a  sn  juicio  para  usar  su  fuerza  de  policia 
y  sus  fnerzas  terrestres  y  navales  6  para  establecer  fortificaciones 
eon  ese  objeto. 

Artici  lo  XXIV. 

Ningiin  cambio  en  el  Gobierno  6  en  las  leyes  y  tratados  de  la 
Republica  de  Panama  afectara,  sin  el  consentimiento  de  los  Estados 
Unidos,  los  derechos  que  correspondan  a  los  Estados  Unidos  en 
virtud  de  esta  convencion  6  en  virtud  de  estipulaciones  en  tratados 
que  existan  entre  los  dos  paises  6  que  para  lo  futuro  lleguen  a  existir 
en  lo  relativo  al  objeto  de  esta  convencion. 

Si  la  Republica  de  Panama  llegare  a  ser  mas  tarde  parte  constitu- 
yente  de  otro  Gobierno  6  forme  union  6  confederacion  de  Estados 
de  tal  modo  que  su  soberania  6  independencia  quede  confundida 
con  la  de  otro  Gobierno,  union  6  confederacion,  los  derechos  de  los 
Estados  Unidos  segiin  esta  convencion  no  serin  de  manera  alguna 
minorados  6  restringidos. 

Articulo  XXV. 

Para  el  mejor  cumplimiento  de  las  obligaciones  de  esta  conven- 
cion y  con  el  fin  de  dar  proteccion  eficaz  al  Canal  y  de  preservar  su 
neutralidad,  el  Gobierno  de  lar  Republica  de  Panama  vendera  6 
arrandara  a,  los  Estados  Unidos  las  tierras  adecuadas  y  necesarias 
para  estaciones  navales  6  carboneras  en  la  costa  del  Pacifico  y  en  la 
parte  occidental  de  la  costa  del  mar  Caribe  de  la  Republica  en  ciertos 
puntos  que  seran  convenidos  con  el  Presidente  de  los  Estados  Unidos. 

Articulo  XXVI. 

Esta  Convencion,  despues  de  firmada  por  los  Plenipotenciarios  de 
las  partes  contratantes,  sera  ratificada  por  los  respectivos  Gobiernos 
y  las  ratificaciones  canjeadas  en  Washington  a  la  mayor  brevedad 
posible. 

En  fe  de  lo  cual  los  respectivos  Plenipotenciarios  firman  la  pre- 
sente  convencion  en  duplicado  y  la  sellan  con  sus  respectivos  sellos. 

Hecha  en  la  ciudad  de  Washington  el  18  de  Noviembre  del  ano 
del  Senor  de  mil  novecientos  tres. 

(Fdo.)     P.  Bunau-Varilla     [hay  un  sello] 
(Fdo.)     John  Hay.  [hay  un  sello] 

y  Considerando: 

1°  Que  en  ese  Tratado  se  ha  obtenido  para  la  Republica  la  garan- 
tia  de  su  Independencia : 

2°  Que  por  razones  de  seguridad  exterior  es  indispensable  pro- 
ceder  con  la  mayor  celeridad  a  la  consideracion  del  Tratado,  a  efecto 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA   CANAL.  313 

de  que  esa  obligacion  principal  por  parte  de  los  Estados  Unidos  de 
America,  principie  a  ser  cumplida  con  eficacia ; 

3°.  Que  con  el  tratado  se  realiza  la  aspiracion  de  los  pueblos  del 
Istmo  cual  es  la  apertura  del  Canal  y  su  servicio  en  favor  del  comercio 
de  todas  las  naciones ;  y 

4°.  Que  la  Junta  de  Gobierno  Provisional  formada  por  voluntad 
unanime  de  los  pueblos  de  la  Eepublica,  posee  todos  los  poderes  del 
soberano  del  teritorio. 

Decreta  : 

Articulo  unico.  Apruebese  el  tratado  celebrado  en  Washington, 
Distrito  Capital  de  la  Eepublica  de  los  Estados  Unidos  de  America, 
el  dia  18  de  Noviembre  del  presente  alio,  entre  su  Excelencia  Philippe 
Bunau-Varilla,  Enviado  Extraordinario  y  Ministro  Plenipotenciario 
de  esta  Eepublica  y  Su  Excelencia  John  Hay,  Secretario  de  Estado 
de  la  Eepublica  de  los  Estados  Unidos  de  America. 
Publiquese. 

Dado  en  Panama,  a  2  de  Diciembre  de  1903. 
(sgd.)  J.  A.  Arango. 

(sgd.)  Tomas  Arias. 

(sgd.)  Manuel.  Espinoza  B. 

El  Ministro  de  Gobierno 

(sgd.)  Eusebio  A.  Morales 

El  Ministro  de  Eelaciones  Exteriores 

(sgd.)  F.  V.  de  la  Espriella 


El  Ministro  de  Justicia 
El  Ministro  de  Hacienda 


(sgd.)  Carlos  A.  Mendoza 


(sgd.)  Manuel  E.  Amador 

El  Ministro  de  Guerra  y  Marina 

(Sgd.)  NlCANOR    A.    DE     ObARRIO 

Por  el  Ministro  de  Instruccion  Piiblica,  El  Subsecretario, 

(sgd.)  Francisco  A.  Facio 

[Hay  un  sello  de  la  Eepublica  de  Panama.] 


No.  6. 

[Executive  N,   Sixtieth  Congress,   second   session.] 

TREATIES   WITH  PANAMA  AND   COLOMBIA   RELATING  TO   THE 

PANAMA  CANAL.1 

MESSAGE  FROM  THE  PRESIDENT  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES,  TRANSMITTING 
TREATIES  BETWEEN  THE  UNITED  STATES  AND  THE  REPUBLICS  OF  PANAMA 
AND  COLOMBIA  RELATING  TO  THE  PANAMA  CANAL,  BOTH  SIGNED  ON 
JANUARY  9,  190©. 

[January  11,  1909  :  Read  ;  treaties  read  the  first  time  and  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Foreign  Relations,  and,  together  with  the  message  and  accompanying  papers,  ordered 
to  be  printed  in  confidence  for  the  use  of  the  Senate.  February  24,  1909  :  Injunction 
of  secrecy  removed.  February  24,  1909  :  Treaty  with  Colombia  ratified.  March  3,  1909  : 
Treaty  with   Panama   ratified.] 

The  President  : 

I  have  the  honor  to  submit  herewith,  with  a  view  to  their  transmis- 
sion to  the  Senate  to  receive  the  advice  and  consent  of  that  body  to 
ratification,  a  treaty  between  the  United  States  and  the  Republic 
of  Panama  and  a  treaty  between  the  United  States  and  the  Republic 
of  Colombia,  both  signed  on  January  9,  1909. 

I  transmit  also,  for  your  information  and  that  of  the  Senate,  a  copy 
of  treaty  between  the  Republic  of  Colombia  and  the  Republic  of 
Panama,  concluded  at  the  same  time,  the  three  treaties  being  in  effect 
parts  of  the  same  transaction  whereby  peace  is  established  between 
Panama  and  Colombia,  the  separation  of  the  two  Republics  is  agreed 
to,  and  the  relations  incident  to  the  separation  are  adjusted. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

Elihu  Root. 

Department  of  State. 

Washington,  January  11, 1909. 


To  the  Senate: 

I  transmit,  with  a  view  to  receiving  the  advice  and  consent  of  the 
Senate  to  their  ratifications,  a  treaty  between  the  United  States  and 
the  Republic  of  Panama  and  a  treaty  between  the  United  States  and 
the  Republic  of  Colombia,  both  signed  on  January  9,  1905). 

I  transmit  also,  for  the  information  of  the  Senate,  a  copy  of  the 
treaty  between  the  Republic  of  Colombia  and  the  Republic  of  Panama, 
concluded  at  the  same  time,  and  mentioned  in  the  accompanying 
report  of  the  Secretary  of  State. 

Theodore  Roosevelt. 

The  White  House,  January  11,  1909. 

1  Consented  to  by  United  States  Senate  Feb.  24,  1909,  and  Mar.  3,  1909,  and  by  Panama 
.     Never  acred  upon  by  Colombian  Congress. 

314 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA   CANAL.  315 

TREATY  WITH  PANAMA. 

The  United  States  of  America  and  the  Republic  of  Panama, 
mutually  desiring  to  facilitate  the  construction,  maintenance  and 
operation  of  the  interoceanic  canal  across  the  Isthmus  of  Panama 
and  to  promote  a  good  understanding  between  the  nations  most 
closely  and  directly  concerned  in  this  highway  of  the  world's  com- 
merce, and  thereby  to  further  its  construction  and  protection,  deem 
it  well  to  amend  and  in  certain  respects  supplement  the  treaty  con- 
cluded between  the  United  States  of  America  and  the  Republic  of 
Panama  on  the  18th  of  November,  1903,  and  to  that  end  have  ap- 
pointed their  respective  Plenipotentiaries,  to  wit : 

The  President  of  the  United  States  of  America,  Elihu  Root, 
Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States ; 

The  President  of  the  Republic  of  Panama,  Carlos  Constantino 
Arosemena,  Envoy  Extraordinary  and  Minister  Plenipotentiary 
of  the  Republic  of  Panama, 

Who,  after  exchange  of  their  full  powers,  found  to  be  in  good 
and  due  form,  have  agreed  upon  the  following  articles: 

Article  I. 

It  is  mutually  agreed  between  the  High  Contracting  Parties  that 
Article  XIV  of  the  treaty  concluded  between  them  on  the  18th  day 
of  November,  1903,  be  and  the  same  is  hereby  amended  by  substi- 
tuting therein  the  words  "  four  ysars  "  for  the  words  "  nine  years," 
and  accordingly  the  United  States  of  America  agrees  to  make  the 
annual  payments  therein  provided  for  beginning  four  years  from  the 
exchange  of  said  treaty  instead  of  nine  years  from  that  date. 

The  United  States  of  America  consents  that  the  Republic  of 
Panama  may  assign  and  transfer,  in  advance,  to  the  Republic  of 
Colombia,  and  to  its  assigns  or  nominees,  the  first  ten  annual  in- 
stallments of  Two  Hundred  and  Fifty  Thousand  Dollars  each,  so 
falling  due  under  said  treaty  as  thus  amended,  on  the  26th  days 
of  February  in  the  years  1908  to  1917,  both  inclusive,  and  its  right 
and  title  thereto,  and,  upon  the  direction  and  acquittance  therefor 
of  the  Republic  of  Panama,  will  pay  said  ten  installments  as  they 
respectfully  fall  due  directly  to  the  Republic  of  Colombia,  its  assigns 
or  nominees,  for  account  of  the  Republic  of  Panama.  Such  install- 
ments as  may  have  matured  when  the  ratifications  of  this  treaty  shall 
be  exchanged  pursuant  to  its  terms  shall  be  payable  on  the  ninetieth 
day  after  the  date  of  such  exchange. 

Article  II. 

Final  delimitation  of  the  cities  of  Panama  and  Colon  and  of  the 
harbors  adjacent  thereto,  under  and  to  effectuate  the  provisions  of 
Article  II  of  said  treaty  of  November  18th,  1903.  shall  be  made  by 
agreement  between  the  Executive  Departments  of  the  two  Govern- 
ments, immediately  upon  the  exchange  of  ratifications  of  this  treaty. 

It  is  further  agreed  that  the  Republic  of  Panama  shall  have  the 
right,  upon  one  year's  previous  notice,  at  any  time  within  the 
period  of  fiftv  years  mentioned  in  Article  VII  of  said  treaty  of 
November  18th,  1903,  to  purchase  and  take  over  from  the  United 


316  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA   CANAL. 

States  of  America  so  ranch  of  the  water  mains  and  distributing 
system  of  the  water  works  mentioned  in  said  article,  for  the  supply 
of  the  City  of  Panama,  and  of  the  appliances  and  appurtenances 
thereof,  as  may  lie  outside  the  Canal  Zone,  and  terminate  the  pro- 
visions of  said  treaty  for  the  ultimate  acquisition  by  the  Republic  of 
Panama  of  said  water  works,  upon  payment  of  such  sum  in  cash  as 
may  be  agreed  upon  as  just  by  the  Presidents  of  the  two  High  Con- 
tracting Parties,  who  are  hereby  fully  empowered  so  to  agree;  if 
there  shall  arise  any  dispute  or  difference  between  the  High  Con- 
tracting Parties  with  respect  to  such  delimitation,  or  if  their  Presi- 
dents shall  not  be  able  to  agree  as  to  the  sum  so  to  be  paid,  then 
upon  the  request  of  either  party,  any  such  difference  shall  be  sub- 
mitted to  the  Tribunal  of  Arbitration,  hereinafter  provided  for. 


// 


Article  III. 


It  is  further  agreed  that  all  differences  which  may  arise  relating 
to  the  interpretation  or  application  of  the  treaty  between  the  United 
States  of  America  and  the  Republic  of  Panama  concluded  on  the  18th 
day  of  November,  1903.  which  it  may  not  have  been  possible  to  settle 
by  diplomacy,  shall  be  referred,  on  the  request  of  either  party,  to  a 
Tribunal  of  Arbitration  to  consist  of  three  members,  of  whom  the 
United  States  shall  nominate  one  member,  the  Republic  of  Panama 
shall  nominate  one  member,  and  the  two  members  thus  nominated) 
shall  jointly  nominate  a  third  member,  or,  in  the  event  of  their 
failure  to  agree  within  three  months  after  appointment,  upon  the 
nomination  of  the  third  member,  such  member  shall  be  appointed 
by  the  President  of  Peru./'  Said  Tribunal  shall  decide  by  a 
majority  vote  all  questions  respecting  its  procedure  and  action, 
as  well  as  all  questions  concerning  the  matters  submitted  to  it.  The 
Tribunal  shall  deliver  duplicate  copies  of  its  decisions  upon  any  of 
the  matters  submitted  to  it,  as  hereinafter  specified,  to  the  United 
States  and  to  the  Republic  of  Panama,  and  any  such  decision  signed 
by  a  majority  of  the  members  of  the  Tribunal  shall  be  conclusively 
deemed  the  decision  of  the  Tribunal.  Any  vacancy  in  the  member- 
ship of  the  Tribunal  caused  by  the  death,  incapacity,  or  withdrawal 
of  any  member  shall  be  filled  in  the  manner  provided  for  the  origi- 
nal appointment  of  the  member  whose  office  shall  thus  become  vacant. 
The  determinations  of  said  Tribunal  shall  be  final,  conclusive  and 
binding  upon  the  High  Contracting  Parties  hereto,  who  bind  them- 
selves to  abide  by  and  conform  to  the  same. 

The  temporary  working  arrangement  or  modus  vivendi  contained 
in  the  Executive  Orders  of  December  3rd,  6th,  16th,  and  28th,  1904, 
and  January  5.  1905.  made  at  Panama  by  the  Secretary  of  War  of 
the  United  States,  and  by  the  President  of  Panama,  on  December  6, 
1904,  which  was  entered  into  for  the  purpose  of  the  practical  opera- 
tion of  the  aforesaid  Treaty  of  November  18,  1903,  shall  be  sub- 
mitted to  revision  by  the  Executive  Departments  of  the  two  Gov- 
ernments with  the  view  to  making  the  same  and  the  practice  there- 
under conform  (if  in  any  respect  they  shall  be  found  not  to  con- 
form) to  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  the  said  treaty  and  to  the 
preservation  and  protection  of  the  rights  of  the  two  Governments 
and  of  the  citizens  of  both  parties  thereunder;  and  any  question  as 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA   CAXAL.  317 

to  such  conformity  arising  upon  such  revision  which  shall  remain 
in  dispute  shall  be  submitted  to  said  Tribunal  of  Arbitration. 

It  is  now  agreed,  however,  that  the  rate  of  duty  to  be  levied  by  the 
Republic  of  Panama  and  fixed  at  10  per  cent  ad  valorem  by  the 
first  proviso  to  said  Executive  Order  of  December  3rd,  1904,  may  be 
increased  to  any  rate  not  exceeding  twenty  per  cent  ad  valorem,  at 
the  pleasure  of  said  Republic. 

Article  IV. 

There  shall  be  a  full,  entire  and  reciprocal  liberty  of  commerce 
and  navigation  between  the  citizens  of  the  two  High  Contracting 
Parties,  who  shall  have  reciprocally  the  right,  on  conforming  to  the 
laws  of  the  country,  to  enter,  travel,  and  reside  in  all  parts  of  the 
respective  territories,  saving  always  the  right  of  expulsion  of  un- 
desirable persons  which  right  each  Government  reserves  to  itself,  and 
they  shall  enjoy  in  this  respect,  for  the  protection  of  their  persons 
and  their  property,  the  same  treatment  and  the  same  rights  as  the 
citizens  or  subjects  of  the  most  favored  nation;  it  being  understood 
and  agreed  that  citizens  of  either  of  the  two  Republics  thus  residing 
in  the  territory  of  the  other  shall  be  exempt  from  military  service 
imposed  upon  the  citizens  of  such  Republic. 

And  the  United  States  of  America  further  agrees  that  the  Repub- 
lic of  Panama  and  the  citizens  thereof  shall  have  and  shall  be  ac- 
corded on  equal  terms  all  such  privileges,  rights,  and  advantages  in 
respect  to  the  construction,  operation,  and  use  of  the  Canal,  railroad, 
telegraph  and  other  facilities  of  the  United  States  within  the  Canal 
Zone,  and  in  respect  of  all  other  matters  relating  thereto,  operating 
within  or  affecting  the  Canal  Zone  or  property  and  persons  therein, 
as  may  at  any  time  be  granted  by  the  United  States  of  America  in 
accord  with  said  treaty  of  November  18th.  1903,  directly  or  indirectly, 
to  any  other  nation  or  the  citizens  or  subjects  thereof,  it  being  the 
intention  of  the  Parties  that  the  Republic  of  Panama  and  the  citizens 
thereof  shall  be  with  respect  thereto  placed  at  least  on  an  equal  foot- 
ing with  the  most  favored  nation  and  the  citizens  or  subjects  thereof. 

Article  V. 

It  is  expressly  understood  and  agreed  that  this  treaty  shall  not  be- 
come operative  nor  its  provisions  obligatory  upon  either  of  the  High 
Contracting  Parties,  until  and  unless  the  treaties  of  even  date  be- 
tween the  Republic  of  Colombia  and  the  Republic  of  Panama  and 
between  the  Republic  of  Colombia  and  the  United  States  of  America 
are  both  duly  ratified  and  the  ratifications  thereof  are  exchanged 
simultaneously  with  the  exchange  of  ratifications  of  the  present 
treaty. 

Article  VI. 

This  treaty  shall  be  ratified  and  the  ratifications  thereof  shall  be 
exchanged  at  Washington  as  soon  as  possible. 

In  witness  whereof,  we  the  respective  Plenipotentiaries  have  signed 
the  present  treaty,  in  duplicate,  in  the  English  and  Spanish  lan- 
guages and  have  hereunto  affixed  our  respective  seals. 


318  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA   CANAL. 

Done  at  Washington  the  9th  day  of  January,  in  the  year  of  our 
Lord  one  thousand  nine  hundred  and  nine. 

(Signed)  Elihu  Root  [seal] 

(Signed)  C.  C.  Arosemena     [seal] 


TREATY  WITH  COLOMBIA. 

The  United  States  of  America  and  the  Republic  of  Colombia 
being  equally  animated  by  the  desire  to  remove  all  obstacles  to  a 
good  understanding  between  them  and  to  facilitate  the  settlement  of 
the  questions  heretofore  pending  between^CoJ^ombia  and  Panama  by 
adjusting  at  the  same  time  the  reTaEions  of  Colombia  to  the  canal 
which  the  United  States  is  now  constructing  across  the  Isthmus  of 
Panama,  have  resolved  to  conclude  a  Treaty  and  to  that  end  have 
appointed  as  their  Plenipotentiaries : 

The  President  of  the  United  States  of  America,  Elihu  Root,  Sec- 
retary of  State  of  the  United  States: 

The  President  of  the  Republic  of  Colombia,  Senor  Don  Enrique 
Cortes,  Envoy  Extraordinary  and  Minister  Plenipotentiary  of  the 
Republic  of  Colombia  at  Washington ; 

Who.  after  communicating  to  each  other  their  respective  full 
powers,  which  were  found  to  be  in  due  and  proper  form,  have  agreed 
upon  the  following  articles : 

Article  I. 

There  shall  be  mutual  and  inviolable  peace  and  sincere  friendship 
between  the  Governments  and  peoples  of  the  two  High  Contracting 
Parties  without  exception  of  persons  or  places  under  their  respective 
dominion. 

Article  II. 

In  consideration  of  the  provisions  and  stipulations  hereinafter 
contained  it  is  agreed  as  follows: 

The  Republic  of  Colombia  shall  have  liberty  at  all  times  to  convey 
through  the  ship  canal  now  in  course  of  construction  by  the  United 
States  across  the  Isthmus  of  Panama  the  troops,  materials  for  war 
and  ships  of  war  of  the  Republic  of  Colombia,  without  paying  any 
duty  to  the  United  States:  even  in  the  case  of  an  international  war 
between  Colombia  and  another  country. 

While  the  said  interoceanic  canal  is  in  course  of  construction  the 
troops  and  materials  for  war  of  the  Republic  of  Colombia,  even  in 
the  case  of  an  international  Avar  between  Colombia  and  any  other 
country,  shall  be  transported  on  the  railway  between  Ancon  and  Cris- 
tobal, or  on  any  other  railway  substituted  therefor,  upon  the  same 
conditions  on  which  similar  service  is  rendered  to  the  United  States. 

The  officers,  agents  and  employees  of  the  Government  of  Colombia 
shall,  during  the  same  period,  be  entitled  to  free  passage  upon  the 
said  railway  across  the  Isthmus  of  Panama  upon  due  notification  to 
the  railway  officials  and  the  production  of  evidence  of  their  official 
character. 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA   CANAL.  319 

The  foregoing  provisions  of  this  article  shall  not.  however,  apply 
in  case  of  war  between  Colombia  and  Panama. 

Article  III. 

The  products  of  the  soil  and  industry  of  the  Republic  of  Colombia, 
such  as  provisions,  cattle,  etc.,  shall  be  admitted  to  entry  in  the  Canal 
Zone  subject  only  to  such  duty  as  would  be  payable  on  similar  prod- 
ucts of  the  United  States  of  America  under  similar  conditions,  so  fal 
as  the  United  States  of  America  has  any  right  or  authority  to  fix  the 
conditions  of  such  importations. 

Colombian  laborers  employed  in  the  Canal  Zone  during  the  con- 
struction of  the  canal,  who  may  desire  that  their  own  families  supply 
them  with  provisions  for  their  personal  use,  shall  be  entitled  to  have 
such  provisions  admitted  to  the  Canal  Zone  for  delivery  to  them  free 
of  any  duty,  provided  that  declaration  thereof  shall  first  have  been 
made  before  the  commissary  officers  of  the  Isthmian  Canal  Commis- 
sion, in  order  to  obtain  the  previous  permit  for  such  entry,  and  sub- 
ject to  such  reasonable  regulations  as  shall  be  prescribed  by  the  Com- 
mission for  ensuring  the  bona  fides  of  the  transaction. 

Article  IV. 

Colombian  mails  shall  have  free  passage  through  the  Canal  Zone 
and  through  the  post-offices  of  Ancon  and  Cristobal  in  the  Canal 
Zone,  paying  only  such  duties  or  charges  as  are  paid  by  the  mails  of 
the  United  States. 

During  the  construction  of  the  canal  Colombian  products  passing 
over  the  Isthmian  Railway  from  and  to  Colombia  ports  shall  be 
transported  at  the  lowest  rates  which  are  charged  for  similar  prod- 
ucts of  the  United  States  passing  over  said  railway  to  and  from  the 
ports  of  the  United  States ;  and  sea  salt,  exclusively  produced  in  Co- 
lombia, passing  from  the  Atlantic  coast  of  Colombia  to  any  Colombian 
port  on  the  Pacific  coast,  shall  be  transported  over  said  railway  free 
of  any  charge  except  the  actual  cost  of  handling  and  transportation, 
not  exceeding  one-half  of  the  ordinary  freight  charges. 

Article  V. 

The  United  States  recognizes  and  accepts  notice  of  the  assignment 
by  the  Republic  of  Panama  to  the  Republic  of  Colombia  of  the  right 
to  receive  from  the  United  States  payment  of  $250,000  in  American 
gold  in  each  year  from  the  year  1908  to  the  year  1917,  both  inclusive, 
such  assignment  having  been  made  in  manner  and  form  as  contained 
in  the  treaty  between  the  Republic  of  Colombia  and  the  Republic  of 
Panama  bearing  even  date  herewith,  whereby  the  independence  6f~" 
the  Republic  of  Panama  is  recognized  by  the  Republic  of  Colombia 
and  the  Republic  of  Panama  is  released  from  obligation  for  the  pay- 
ment of  any  part  of  the  external  and  internal  debt  of  the  Republic  of 
Colombia. 

Article  VI. 

The  Republic  of  Colombia  grants  to  the  United  States  the  use  of 
all  the  ports  of  the  Republic  open  to  commerce  as  places  of  refuge 


o20  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OP    THE    PANAMA   CANAL. 

for  any  vessels  employed  in  the  canal  enterprise,  and  for  all  vessels 
in  distress  passing  or  bound  to  pass  through  the  canal  and  seeking 
shelter  or  anchorance  in  said  ports,  subject  in  time  of  war  to  the  rules 
of  neutrality  properly  applicable  thereto.  Such  vessels  shall  be 
exempt  from  anchorage  or  tonnage  clues  on  the  part  of  the  Republic 
of  Colombia. 

The  Republic  of  Colombia  renounces  all  rights  and  interests  in  con- 
nection with  any  contract  or  concession  made  between  it  and  any  cor- 
poration or  person  relating  to  the  construction  or  operation  of  a  canal 
or  railway  across  the  Isthmus  of  Panama. 

Article  VII. 

As  soon  as  practicable  after  the  exchange  or  ratifications  of  this 
treaty  and  the  contemporaneous  treaties  of  even  date  herewith  be- 
tween the  United  States  of  America  and  the  Republic  of  Panama,  and 
between  the  Republic  of  Colombia  and  the  Republic  of  Panama,  the 
United  States  of  America  and  the  Republic  of  Colombia  will  enter 
into  negotiations  for  the  revision  of  the  Treaty  of  Peace,  Amity, 
Navigation,  and  Commerce  between  the  United  States  of  America 
and  the  Republic  of  New  Granada,  concluded  on  the  12th  day  of 
December,  1840,  with  a  view  to  making  the  provisions  therein  con- 
tained conform  to  existing  conditions,  and  to  including  therein  pro- 
vision for  a  general  treaty  of  arbitration. 

Article  VIII. 

This  treaty,  duly  signed  by  the  High  Contracting  Parties,  shall 
be  ratified  by  each"  according  to  its  respective  laws,  and  the  ratifica- 
tions thereof  shall  be  exchanged  at  Washington  as  soon  as  possible. 

But  it  is  understood  that  such  ratifications  are  not  to  be  exchanged 
nor  the  provisions  of  this  treaty  made  obligatory  upon  either  party, 
until  and  unless  the  aforesaid  treaties  between  the  Republic  of  Colom- 
bia and  the  Republic  of  Panama,  and  between  the  United  States  of 
America  and  the  Republic  of  Panama,  bearing  even  date  herewith, 
are  both  duly  ratified,  and  the  ratifications  thereof  are  exchanged 
simultaneously  with  the  exchange  of  ratifications  of  this  treaty. 

In  witness*  whereof.  We,  the  respective  Plenipotentiaries,  have 
signed  the  present  treaty  in  duplicate,  in  the  English  and  Spanish 
languages,  and  have  hereunto  affixed  our  respective  seals. 

Done  at  the  City  of  AVashington,  the  9th  day  of  January,  in  the 
vear  of  our  Lord  nineteen  hundred  and  nine. 

(Signed)  Elihu  Root  [seal] 

(Signed)  Enrique  Cortes     [seal] 


TREATY  BETWEEN  THE  REPUBLICS  OF  PANAMA  AND 

COLOMBIA. 

The  Republic  of  Colombia  and  the  Republic  of  Panama,  equally 
animated  bv  the  desire  to  remove  all  obstacles  to  their  good  under- 
standing, to  adjust  their  pecuniary  and  other  relations  to  each  other 
and  to  secure  mutually  the  benefits  of  amity  and  accord,  have  de- 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE  PANAMA  CANAL.  321 

termined  to  conclude  a  convention  for  these  purposes  and,  therefore, 
have  appointed  as  their  respective  Plenipotentiaries,  that  is  to  say: 

The  President  of  the  Eepublic  of  Colombia,  Enrique  Cortes,  Envoy- 
Extraordinary  and  Minister  Plenipotentiary  of  the  Republic  of 
Colombia,  in  Washington,  and 

The  President  of  the  Republic  of  Panama,  Carlos  Constantino 
Arosemena,  Envoy  Extraordinary  and  Minister  Plenipotentiary  of 
the  Republic  of  Panama,  in  Washington. 

Who,  after  having  communicated  to  each  other  their  respective 
full  powers,  found  in  good  and  due  form,  have  agreed  upon  and 
concluded  the  following  articles : 

Article  I. 

The  Republic  of  Colombia  recognizes  the  Independence  of  the 
Republic  of  Panama  and  acknowledges  it  to  be  a  free,  sovereign 
and  independent  nation. 

Article  II. 

There  shall  be  a  mutual  and  inviolable  peace  and  friendship  be- 
tween the  Government  of  the  Republic  of  Colombia  and  its  citizens 
on  the  one  part  and  the  Government  of  the  Republic  of  Panama  and 
its  citizens  on  the  other  part,  without  exception  of  persons  or  places 
under  their  respective  dominion. 

Article   III. 

/ 
/  The  Republic  of  Panama  assigns  and  transfers  to  the  Republic 

of  Colombia,  and  its  assigns  and  nominees,  in  lawful  and  due  form, 
the  first  ten  annual  installments  of  two  hundred  and  fifty  thousand 
dollars  gold  coin  each  becoming  due  to  it,  the  Republic  of  Panama, 
from  the  United  States  of  America,  on  the  26th  days  of  February 
in  the  years  1908  to  1917,  both  inclusive,  undexjmd  pursuant  to  the 
provisions  of  Article  XIV  of  the  treaty  between~~the  United  States 
of  America  and  the  Republic  of  Panama  concluded  November  18, 
1903,  and  under  and  pursuant  to  the  amendment  thereof,  embodied 
in  a  treaty  of  even  date  between  said  nations,  whereby  said  Article 
XIV  is  amended  by  substituting  the  words  "  four  years  "  for  the 
words  "  nine  years,"  so  that  the  first  annual  payment  of  which  that 
article  treats  shall  begin  four  years  from  the  exchange  of  ratifica- 
tions of  said  treaty  on  February  26th,  1901,  instead  of  nine  years 
from  said  date,  in  such  manner  that  the  said  installments  shall  be 
paid  by  the  United  States  of  America  directly  to  the  Republic  of 
Colombia  or  its  assigns  and  nominees  for  account  of  the  Republic 
of  Panama,  in  lawful  and  due  form,  beginning  the  26th  day  of 
February,  1908.  Such  installments  as  may  have  matured  when  the 
ratifications  of  this  treaty  shall  be  exchanged  pursuant  to  its  terms, 
shall  be  payable  on  the  ninetieth  day  after  the  date  of  such  exchange. 
In  consideration  of  the  payments  and  releases  which  the  Republic 
of  Panama  makes  to  the  Republic  of  Colombia,  the  latter  recognizes 
and  agrees  that  the  Republic  of  Panama  has  no  liability  upon  and 
no  obligations  to  the  holders  of  the  external  and  internal  debt  of 

42112-  -S.  Doe.  474,  63-2 21 


322  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE   PANAMA    CANAL. 

the  Republic  of  Colombia,  nor  to  the  Republic  of  Colombia,  by 
reason  of  any  such  indebtedness  or  claims  relating  thereto.  The 
Republic  of  Colombia  recognizes  and  agrees  that  it  is  itself  solely 
obligated  for  such  external  and  internal  debt;  assumes  the  obliga- 
tion to  pay  and  discharge  the  same  by  itself  alone;  and  agrees  to 
indemnify  and  hold  harmless  the  Republic  of  Panama,  should  occa- 
sion arise,  from  any  liability  in  respect  of  such  external  and  internal 
indebtedness,  and  from  any  expense  which  may  result  from  failure 
or  delay  in  respect  of  such  payment  and  discharge. 

Article   IV. 

Each  of  the  contracting  Republics  releases  and  discharges  the 
other  from  all  pecuniary  claims  and  obligations  of  any  nature  what- 
ever, including  the  external  and  internal  debt  of  the  Republic  of 
Colombia,  which  either  had  against  the  other  on  the  3rd  day  of 
November,  1903,  it  being  understood  that  this  reciprocal  exoneration 
relates  only  to  the  national  debts  and  claims  of  one  against  the  other, 
and  that  it  does  not  relate  to  individual  rights  and  claims  of  the  citi- 
zens of  either  Republic.  Neither  party  shall  be  bound  to  allow  or 
satisfy  any  of  such  individual  claims  arising  from  transactions  or 
occurrences  prior  to  November  3,  1903,  unless  the  same  would  be 
valid  according  to  the  laws  of  the  country  against  which  the  claim 
is  made,  as  such  laws  existed  on  November  3rd,  1903. 

Article  V. 

The  Republic  of  Panama  recognizes  that  it  has  no  title  or  owner- 
ship of  any  sort  to  the  fifty  thousand  shares  of  the  capital  stock  of 
the  New  Panama  Canal  Company,  standing  in  the  name  of  the  Re- 
public of  Colombia  on  the  books  of  said  company  at  Paris,  and  the 
Republic  of  Panama  confirms  the  abandonment  of  all  right  and 
title,  which,  with  respect  to  said  shares,  it  made  in  the  Courts  of 
Justice  of  France. 

Article  VI. 

The  citizens  of  each  Republic,  residing  in  the  territory  of  the 
other,  shall  enjoy  the  same  civil  rights  which  are  or  shall  hereafter 
be  accorded  by  the  laws  of  the  country  of  residence  to  the  citizens 
of  the  most  favored  nation.  It  being  understood,  however,  that  the 
citizens  of  either  of  the  two  Republics  residing  in  the  other  shall 
be  exempt  from  military  service  imposed  upon  the  citizens  of  such 
Republic. 

All  persons  born  within  the  territory  now  of  the  Republic  of 
Panama,  prior  to  the  3rd  day  of  November,  1903,  who  were,  on  that 
day,  residents  of  the  territory  now  of  the  Republic  of  Colombia, 
may  elect  to  be  citizens  of  the  Republic  of  Colombia  or  of  the  Re- 
public of  Panama;  and  all  persons  born  within  the  territory  now 
of  the  Republic  of  Colombia  who  were,  on  said  3rd  day  of  November. 
1903.  residents  of  the  territory  now  of  the  Republic  of  Panama, 
may' elect  to  be  citizens  of  the  Republic  of  Panama  or  of  the  Re- 
public of  Colombia,  by  making  declaration  of  their  election  in  the 
manner  hereinafter  provided,  within  one  year  from  the  date  of  the 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  323 

proclamation  of  the  exchange  of  the  ratifications  of  this  treaty,  or, 
in  case  of  any  persons  who  shall  not  on  that  day  be  of  full  age. 
within  one  year  from  their  attainment  of  their  majority  according 
to  the  laws  of  the  country  of  their  residence. 

Such  election  may  be  made  by  filing  in  the  office  of  the  Minister 
or  Secretary  of  Foreign  Affairs  of  the  country  of  residence  a  decla- 
ration of  such  election.  Such  declaration  may  be  made  before  any 
officer  authorized  to  administer  oaths  and  may  be  transmitted  by 
mail  to  such  Minister  or  Secretary  of  Foreign  Affairs,  whose  duty 
it  shall  be  to  file  and  register  the  same,  and -no  other  formality  ex- 
cept the  transmission  thereof  shall  be  required  and  no  fees  shall  be 
imposed  for  making  of  filing  thereof.  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the 
respective  Departments  of  Foreign  Affairs  of  the  High  Contract- 
ing Parties  to  communicate  promptly  to  each  other  the  names,  oc- 
cupations, and  addresses  of  the  persons  so  exercising  such  election. 

All  persons  entitled  to  make  such  declarations  who  shall  not  have 
made  the  same  within  the  period  hereinbefore  limited  shall  be 
deemed  to  have  elected  tc  become  citizens  of  the  country  within  whose 
present  territory  they  were  born.  But  no  further  declaration  shall 
be  required  from  any  such  person  who  has  already  by  formal  decla- 
ration before  a  public  official  of  either  country,  and  in  accordance 
with  its  laws3  made  election  of  the  nationality  of  that  country. 

The  natives  of  the  countries  of  either  of  the  two  contracting  Re- 
publics who  have  heretofore  or  shall  hereafter  become  citizens  by 
naturalization,  or  otherwise  as  herein  provided  for,  in  the  other  Re- 
public, shall  not  be  punished,  molested,  or  discriminated  against  by 
reason  of  their  acts  of  adhesion  to  the  country  whose  citizenship 
they  have  adopted. 

Article  VII. 

Both  Republics  agree,  each  for  itself,  that  neither  of  them  shall 
admit  to  form  any  part  of  its  nationality  any  part  of  the  territory 
of  the  other  which  separates  from  it  by  force. 

Article  VIII. 

As  soon  as  this  treaty  and  the  contemporaneous  treaties  of  even 
date  between  the  United  States  of  America  and  the  Republic  of 
Colombia  and  between  the  United  States  of  America  and  the  Re- 
public of  Panama  shall  be  ratified  and  exchanged,  negotiations  shall 
be  entered  upon  between  the  Republics  of  Colombia  and  Panama 
for  the  conclusion  of  additional  treaty  or  treaties,  covering  ques- 
tions of  commerce,  postal,  telegraph,  copyright,  consular  relations, 
extradition  of  criminals,  arbitration  and  the  like. 

Article  IX. 

It  is  agreed  between  the  High  Contracting  Parties  and  is  declared, 
that  the  dividing  line  between  the  Republic  of  Colombia  and  the 
Republic  of  Panama  shall  be  as  follows,  to  wit: 

From  Cape  Tiburon  on  the  Atlantic  to  the  head  waters  of  the 
Rio  de  l;i.  Miel.  and  following  the  range  by  the  Cerro  de  Gandi  to 
the  .Sierra    de  Chugargun   and  that  of  Mali,  going  down  by  the 


324  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE   PANAMA  CANAL. 

Cerros  of  Nique  to  the  heights  of  Aspave,  and  from  there  to  the 
Pacific  at  such  point  and  by  such  line  as  shall  be  determined  by 
the  Tribunal  of  Arbitration  hereinafter  provided  for,  and  the  deter- 
mination of  said  line  shall  conform  to  the  decision  of  such  Tribunal 
of  Arbitration  as  next  provided. 

As  to  the  territory  submitted  to  arbitration  (the  region  of  Jurado) 
the  boundaries  and  attribution  of  which  to  either  the  Republic  of 
Colombia  or  the  Republic  of  Panama  will  be  fixed  by  the  determina- 
tion of  the  line  aforesaid  by  said  Tribunal  of  Arbitration,  the  title 
thereto  and  the  precise  limits  thereof,  and  the  right  to  the  sover- 
eignty thereof  as  between  the  High  Contracting  Parties,  shall  be 
conclusively  determined  by  arbitration  in  the  following  manner : 

A  Tribunal  of  Arbitration  shall  be  created  to  investigate  and 
determine  all  questions  of  fact  and  law  concerning  the  rights  of  the 
High  Contracting  Parties  to  or  in  all  the  territory  in  the  above  men- 
tioned region  of  Jurado.  The  Tribunal  shall  consist  of  three  mem- 
bers; the  Republic  of  Colombia  shall  nominate  one  member,  the 
Republic  of  Panama  shall  nominate  one  member,  both  of  whom  shall 
be  nominated  within  three  months  after  the  exchange  of  ratifications 
of  this  treaty,  and  the  two  members  of  the  Tribunal  thus  nominated 
shall  jointly  nominate  a  third  member,  or,  in  the  event  of  their 
failure  to  agree  within  three  months  next  after  the  appointment  of 
the  last  of  them,  and  on  request  of  the  President  of  either  of  the 
High  Contracting  Parties,  the  third  member  of  the  Tribunal  shall 
be  appointed  by  the  President  of  the  Republic  of  Cuba. 

The  Tribunal  shall  hold  its  sessions  at  such  place  as  the  Tribunal 
shall  determine. 

The  case  on  behalf  of  each  party,  with  the  papers  and  documents, 
shall  be  communicated  to  the  other  party  within  three  months  after 
the  appointment  of  the  third  member  of  the  Tribunal. 

The  counter-cases  shall  be  similarly  communicated  with  the  papers 
and  documents  within  three  months  after  communication  of  the 
cases  respectively. 

And  within  two  months  after  communication  of  the  counter-case 
the  other  party  may  communicate  its  reply. 

The  proceedings' of  the  Tribunal  shall  be  governed  by  the  pro- 
visions, so  far  as  applicable,  of  the  Convention  for  the  Pacific  Settle- 
ment of  International  Disputes  signed  at  The  Hague  by  the  repre- 
sentatives of  both  the  parties  hereto  on  the  18th  day  of  October,  1907. 

The  Tribunal  shall  take  into  consideration  all  relevant  laws  and 
treaties  and  all  facts  proved  of  occupancy,  possession  and  political 
or  administrative  control  in  respect  of  the  territory  in  dispute. 

Article  X. 

This  treaty  shall  not  be  binding  upon  either  of  the  High  Contract- 
ing Parties,  nor  have  any  force  until  and  unless  the  treaties  signed 
on  this  same  date  between  the  Republic  of  Colombia  and  the  United 
States  of  America  and  between  the  Republic  of  Panama  and  the 
United  States  of  America  are  both  duly  ratified  and  ratifications 
thereof  are  exchanged  simultaneously  with  the  exchange  of  the 
ratifications  of  this  treaty. 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  325 

Article  XI. 

The  present  treaty  shall  pe  submitted  for  ratification  to  the 
respective  Governments,  and  ratifications  hereof  exchanged  at  Wash- 
ington as  soon  as  possible. 

In  Witness  Whereof,  We,  the  respective  Plenipotentiaries,  have 
signed  the  present  treaty  in  duplicate  in  the  Spanish  and  English 
languages,  and  have  hereunto  affixed  our  respective  seals. 

Done  at  the  City  of  Washington,  the  9th  day  of  January,  in  the 
year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  nine  hundred  and  nine. 

(Signed)  Enrique  Cortes       [seal] 

(Signed)  C.  C.  Arosemena     [seal] 


No.  7. 
MESSAGE  OF  PRESIDENT  TAFT.  AUGUST   19,  1912 

[House  Document  No.  914,  Sixty-second  Congress,  second  session.] 

THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

MESSAGE  FROM  THE  PRESIDENT  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES,  SUGGESTING 
PASSAGE  OF  -HUNT  RESOLUTION  RELATIVE  TO  THE  HAY-PAUNCEFOTE 
TREATY. 

[August  19.  1912,  read,  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Military  Affairs,  and  ordered  to  be 

printed.  1 

To  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives: 

Congress  has  passed  a  bill  for  the  government  of  the  Panama  Canal 
when  it  shall  have  been  completed,  in  section  5  of  which  it  is  provided 
that  no  tolls  shall  be  levied  upon  vessels  engaged  in  the  coastwise 
trade  of  the  United  States.  Under  existing  law  no  vessels  but  those  of 
the  United  States  can  engage  in  the  coastwise  trade.  The  same  bill 
provides  for  the  imposition,  within  the  discretion  of  the  President,  of 
tolls  not  exceeding  $1.25  per  net  registered  ton  upon  all  other  vessels 
using  the  canal. 

In  the  debates  in  the  House  and  Senate  it  was  contended  that  this 
was  a  discrimination  in  favor  of  vessels  of  the  United  States  in  viola- 
tion of  the  following  provision  of  the  Hay-Pauncef ote  treaty : 

The  canal  shall  be  free  and  open  to  the  vessels  of  commerce  and  of  war  of  all 
nations  observing  these  rules,  on  terms  of  entire  equality,  so  that  there  shall  be 
no  discrimination  against  any  such  nation,  or  its  citizens  or  subjects,  in  respect 
of  the  conditions  or  charges  of  traffic,  or  otherwise.  Such  conditions  and  charges 
of  traffic  shall  be  just  and  equitable.     (Art.  III.  sec.  1,  p.  1904.) 

After  full  examination  of  the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty  and  of  the 
treaty  which  preceded  it,  I  feel  confident  that  the  exemption  of  the 
coastwise  vessels  of  the  United  States  from  tolls  and  the  imposition 
of  tolls  on  vessels  of  all  nations  engaged  in  the  foreign  trade  is  not  a 
violation  of  the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty.  But  distinguished  lawyers 
in  the  House  and  Senate  differ  from  this  construction,  and  the  Secre- 
tary of  State  has  received  an  informal  protest  from  the  British  Gov- 
ernment that  the  contemplated  legislation  is  a  violation  of  her  treaty 
rights. 

The  necessity  for  the  enactment  of  the  provisions  of  the  bill  looking 
to  the  maintenance  and  government  of  the  canal  I  have  already 
explained  in  a  special  message,  and  this  necessity  makes  me  anxious 
to  sign  the  bill.  On  the  other  hand,  the  question  of  the  foreign  rela- 
tions of  the  Government  is  one  in  respect  of  which  the  Executive  has 
especial  responsibility,  and  such  a  protest  from  a  friendly  Govern- 
ment, supported  as  it  is  by  the  expressed  views  of  distinguished 
Members  of  both  Houses,  invites  the  greatest  care  and  the  closest 

326 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA   CANAL.  327 

examination  on  our  part  of  our  rights  under  our  treaties,  with  a  view 
to  preserving  national  honor  and  observing  our  solemn  obligations. 

I  am  sure  that  it  is  not  the  intention  of  Congress  to  violate  the 
Hay-Pauncefote  treaty  or  to  enact  anything  inconsistent  with  its 
provisions,  and  that  it  certainly  is  not  its  purpose  to  repeal,  by  sub- 
sequent enactment,  the  treaty,  in  so  far  as  it  represents  the  law  of  the 
land.  It  is  of  the  highest  importance,  however,  that  this  attitude 
should  be  made  clearly  known  to  the  nations  of  the  world,  and  that 
we  should  avoid  any  apparent  justification  for  criticism. 

I  suggest,  therefore,  that  before  the  time  has  elapsed  in  which  I  am 
called  upon  to  express  approval  or  disapproval  of  this  bill  Congress 
consider  the  wisdom  of  passing  a  joint  resolution  of  the  following 
tenor  : 

That  nothing  continued  in  the  act  entitled  "An  act  to  provide  for  the  opening, 
maintenance,  protection,  and  operation  of  the  Panama  Canal,  and  the  sanitation 
and  Government  of  the  Canal  Zone"  shall  be  deemed  to  repeal  any  provision  of 
the  Hay-Paimeefote  treaty,  or  to  affect  the  judicial  construction  thereof,  or  in 
any  wise  to  impair  any  rights  or  privileges  which  have  been  or  may  be  acquired 
by  any  foreign  nation  tinder  the  treaties  of  the  United  States  relative  to  tolls 
or  other  charges  for  the  passage  of  vessels  through  the  Panama  Canal,  and 
that  when  any  alien,  whether  natural  person,  partnership,  company,  or  corpora- 
tion, considers  that  the  charging  of  tolls  or  the  enforcement  of  any  other  regula- 
tion under  and  pursuant  to  the  provisions  of  this  act  violates  in  any  way  any  such 
treaty  rights  or  privileges,  such  alien  shall  have  the  right  to  bring  an  action 
against  the  United  States  for  a  redress  of  the  injury  which  he  considers  himself 
to  have  suffered,  and  the  district  courts  of  the  United  States  are  hereby  given 
jurisdiction  to  hear  and  determine  such  cases  and  to  decree  the  appropriate 
relief,  and  from  the  decision  of  such  district  courts  there  shall  be  an  appeal  by 
either  party  to  the  action  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States. 

Or,  in  the  alternative,  that  Congress  recall  the  bill  and  insert  the 
foregoing  as  an  amendment  to  the  bill. 

Unless  some  such  clause  is  embodied  in  the  law,  it  would  probably 
be  contended  that  the  legislative  construction  of  the  treaty  given  by 
Congress  in  enacting  the  law  is  binding  upon  our  courts  when  the 
question  of  the  rights  of  aliens  under  the  treaty  comes  before  them. 
The  foregoing  provision  would  avoid  such  etfect  and  would  leave  the 
matter  entirely  free  to  judicial  construction,  unaffected  by  the  polit- 
ical decision  of  either  the  executive  or  legislative  branch  of  our 
Government. 

This  language  negatives  absolutely  any  desire  on  the  part  of  Con- 
gress to  repeal  the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty  or  to  violate  its  provi- 
sions by  this  legislation  and  leaves  open  to  any  person  who  deems 
himself  aggrieved  by  the  provisions  of  the  act  an  opportunity  to 
appeal  to  our  courts. 

I  think  the  importance  of  our  standing  before  the  world  as  anxious 
to  give  to  the  world  an  opportunity  to  test  this  question  in  the  courts 
is  an  earnest  of  our  good  faith  in  attempting  to  keep  within  our  treaty 
obligations. 

War.  H.  Taft. 

The  White  House,  August  19,  1912. 


No.  8. 
PANAMA  CANAL  ACT. 

[Public — No.  337.] 
[H.  R.  21969.] 

AN  ACT  To  provide  for  the  opening,  maintenance,  protection,  and  operation  of 
the  Panama  Canal,  and  the  sanitation  and  government  of  the  Canal  Zone. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the 
United  States  of  America  in  Congress  assembled,  That  the  zone  of 
land  and  land  under  water  of  the  width  of  ten  miles  extending  to  the 
distance  of  five  miles  on  each  side  of  the  center  line  of  the  route  of 
the  canal  now  being  constructed  thereon,  which  zone  begins  in  the 
Caribbean  Sea  three  marine  miles  from  mean  low-water  mark  and 
extends  to  and  across  the  Isthmus  of  Panama  into  the  Pacific  Ocean 
to  the  distance  of  three  marine  miles  from  mean  low-water  mark, 
excluding  therefrom  the  cities  of  Panama  and  Colon  and  their  adja- 
cent harbors  located  within  said  zone,  as  excepted  in  the  treaty  with 
the  Republic  of  Panama  dated  November  eighteenth,  nineteen  hun- 
dred and  three,  but  including  all  islands  within  said  described  zone, 
and  in  addition  thereto  the  group  of  islands  in  the  Bay  of  Panama 
named  Perico,  Naos,  Culebra,  and  Flamenco,  and  any  lands  and 
waters  outside  of  said  limits  above  described  which  are  necessary  or 
convenient  or  from  time  to  time  may  become  necessary  or  convenient 
for  the  construction,  maintenance,  operation,  sanitation,  or  protec- 
tion of  the  said  canal  or  of  any  auxiliary  canals,  lakes,  or  other  works 
necessary  or  convenient  for  the  construction,  maintenance,  operation, 
sanitation,  or  protection  of  said  canal,  the  use,  occupancy,  or  control 
whereof  were  granted  to  the  United  States  by  the  treaty  between  the 
United  States  and  the  Republic  of  Panama,  the  ratifications  of  which 
were  exchanged  on  the  twenty-sixth  day  of  February,  nineteen  hun- 
dred and  four,  shall  be  known  and  designated  as  the  Canal  Zone, 
and  the  canal  now  being  constructed  thereon  shall  hereafter  be 
known  and  designated  as  the  Panama  Canal.  The  President  is 
authorized,  by  treaty  with  the  Republic  of  Panama,  to  acquire  any 
additional  land  or  land  under  water  not  already  granted,  or  which 
was  excepted  from  the  grant,  that  he  may  deem  necessary  for  the 
operation,  maintenance,  sanitation,  or  protection  of  the  Panama 
Canal,  and  to  exchange  any  land  or  land  under  water  not  deemed 
necessary  for  such  purposes  for  other  land  or  land  under  water  which 
may  bo  deemed  necessary  for  such  purposes,  which  additional  land 
or  land  under  water  so  acquired  shall  become  part  of  the  Canal  Zone. 

Sec.  2.  That  all  laws,  orders,  regulations,  and  ordinances  adopted 
and  promulgated  in  the  Canal  Zone  by  order  of  the  President  for  the 
government  and  sanitation  of  the  Canal  Zone  and  the  construction  of 

328 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  329 

the  Panama  Canal  are  hereby  ratified  and  confirmed  as  valid  and 
binding  until  Congress  shall  otherwise  provide.  The  existing  courts 
established  in  the  Canal  Zone  by  Executive  order  are  recognized  and 
confirmed  to  continue  in  operation  until  the  courts  provided  for  in 
this  Act  shall  be  established. 

Sec.  3.  That  the  President  is  authorized  to  declare  by  Executive 
order  that  all  land  and  land  under  water  within  the  limits  of  the 
Canal  Zone  is  necessary  for  the  construction,  maintenance,  operation, 
sanitation,  or  protection  of  the  Panama  Canal,  and  to  extinguish,  by 
agreement  when  advisable,  all  claims  and  titles  of  adverse  claimants 
and  occupants.  Upon  failure  to  secure  by  agreement  title  to  any 
such  parcel  of  land  or  land  under  water  the  adverse  claim  or  occu- 
pancy shall  be  disposed  of  and  title  thereto  secured  in  the  United 
States  and  compensation  therefor  fixed  and  paid  in  the  manner  pro- 
vided in  the  aforesaid  treaty  with  the  Republic  of  Panama,  or  such 
modification  of  such  treaty  as  may  hereafter  be  made. 

Sec.  4.  That  when  in  the  judgment  of  the  President  the  construc- 
tion of  the  Panama  Canal  shall  be  sufficiently  advanced  toward 
completion  to  render  the  further  services  of  the  Isthmian  Canal 
Commission  unnecessary  the  President  is  authorized  by  Executive 
order  to  discontinue  the  Isthmian  Canal  Commission,  which,  together 
with  the  present  organization,  shall  then  cease  to  exist;  and  the 
President  is  authorized  thereafter  to  complete,  govern,  and  operate 
the  Panama  Canal  and  govern  the  Canal  Zone,  or  cause  them  to  be 
completed,  governed,  and  operated,  through  a  governor  of  the 
Panama  Canal  and  such  other  persons  as  he  ma}'  deem  competent  to 
discharge  the  various  duties  connected  with  the  completion,  care, 
maintenance,  sanitation,  operation,  government,  and  protection  of 
the  canal  and  Canal  Zone.  If  any  of  the  persons  appointed  or 
emplo}^ed  as  aforesaid  shall  be  persons  in  the  military  or  naval  service 
of  the  United  States,  the  amount  of  the  official  salary  paid  to  any  such 
person  shall  be  deducted  from  the  amount  of  salary  or  compensation 
provided  by  or  which  shall  be  fixed  under  the  terms  of  this  Act.  The 
governor  of  the  Panama  Canal  shall  be  appointed  by  the  President, 
by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate,  commissioned  for 
a  term  of  four  years,  and  until  his  successor  shall  be  appointed  and 
qualified.  He  shall  receive  a  salary  of  ten  thousand  dollars  a  year. 
All  other  persons  necessary  for  the  completion,  care,  management, 
maintenance,  sanitation,  government,  operation,  and  protection  of 
the  Panama  Canal  and  Canal  Zone  shall  be  appointed  by  the  Presi- 
dent, or  by  his  authority,  removable  at  his  pleasure,  and  the  com- 
pensation of  such  persons  shall  be  fixed  by  the  President,  or  by  his 
authority,  until  such  time  as  Congress  may  by  law  regulate  the  same, 
but  salaries  or  compensation  fixed  hereunder  by  the  President  shall 
in  no  instance  exceed  by  more  than  twenty-five  per  centum  the 
salary  or  compensation  paid  for  the  same  or  similar  services  to  persons 
employed  by  the  Government  in  continental  United  States.  That 
upon  the  completion  of  the  Panama  Canal  the  President  shall  cause 
the  same  to  be  officially  and  formally  opened  for  use  and  operation. 

Before  the  completion  of  the  canal,  the  Commission  of  Arts  may 
make  report  to  the  President  of  their  recommendation  regarding  the 
artistic  character  of  the  structures  of  the  canal,  such  report  to  be 
transmitted  to  Congress. 


330  DIPLOMATIC    HISTOBY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL. 

Sec.  5.  That  the  President  is  hereby  authorized  to  prescribe  and 
from  time  to  time  change  the  tolls  that  shall  be  levied  by  the  Gov- 
ernment of  the  United  States  for  the  use  of  the  Panama  Canal: 
Provided,  That  no  tolls,  when  prescribed  as  above,  shall  be  changed, 
unless  six  months'  notice  thereof  shall  have  been  given  by  the  Presi- 
dent by  proclamation.  No  tolls  shall  be  levied  upon  vessels  engaged 
in  the  coastwise  trade  of  the  United  States.  That  section  forty-one 
hundred  and  thirty-two  of  the  Revised  Statutes  is  hereby  amended  to 
read  as  follows: 

"Sec.  4132.  Vessels  built  within  the  United  States  and  belonging 
wholly  to  citizens  thereof;  and  vessels  which  may  be  captured  in  war 
by  citizens  of  the  United  States  and  lawfully  condemned  as  prize  or 
which  may  be  adjudged  to  be  forfeited  for  a  breach  of  the  laws  of 
the  United  States:  and  seagoing  vessels,  whether  steam  or  sail, 
which  have  been  certified  by  the  Steamboat-Inspection  Service  as 
safe  to  carry  dry  and  perishable  cargo,  not  more  than  five  years  old 
at  the  time  they  apply  for  registry,  wherever  built,  which  are  to 
engage  only  in  trade  with  foreign  countries  or  with  the  Philippine 
Islands  and  the  islands  of  Guam  and  Tutuila,  being  wholly  owned  by 
citizens  of  the  United  States  or  corporations  organized  and  chartered 
under  the  laws  of  the  United  States  or  of  any  State  thereof,  the  presi- 
dent and  managing  directors  of  which  shall  be  citizens  of  the  United 
States  or  corporations  organized  and  chartered  under  the  laws  of  the 
United  States  or  of  any  State  thereof,  the  President  and  managing 
directors  of  which  shall  be  citizens  of  the  United  States,  and  no  others, 
may  be  registered  as  directed  in  this  title.  Foreign-built  vessels 
registered  pursuant  to  this  Act  shall  not  engage  in  the  coastwise  trade : 
Prodded,  That  a  foreign-built  yacht,  pleasure  boat,  or  vessel  not  used 
or  intended  to  be  used  for  trade  admitted  to  American  registry 
pursuant  to  this  section  shall  not  be  exempt  from  the  collection  of  ad 
valorem  duty  provided  in  section  thirty-seven  of  the  Act  approved 
August  fifth,  nineteen  hundred  and  nine,  entitled  'An  Act  to  provide 
revenue,  equalize  duties,  and  encourage  the  industries  of  the  United 
States,  and  for  other  purposes.'  That  all  materials  of  foreign  pro- 
duction which  may  be  necessary  for  the  construction  or  repair  of 
vessels  built  in  the  United  States  and  all  such  materials  necessary 
for  the  building  or  repair  of  their  machinery  and  all  articles  neces- 
sary for  their  outfit  and  equipment  may  be  imported  into  the  United 
States  free  of  duty  under  such  regulations  as  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  may  prescribe:  Provided  further,  That  such  vessels  so 
admitted  under  the  provisions  of  this  section  may  contract  with  the 
Postmaster  General  under  the  Act  of  March  third,  eighteen  hundred 
and  ninety-one.  entitled  'An  Act  to  provide  for  ocean  mail  service 
between  the  United  States  and  foreign  ports,  and  to  promote  com- 
merce,' so  long  as  such  vessels  shall  in  all  respects  comply  with  the 
provisions  and  requirements  of  said  act." 

Tolls  may  be  based  upon  gross  or  net  registered  tonnage,  displace- 
ment tonnage,  or  otherwise,  and  may  be  based  on  one  form  of  tonnage 
for  warships  and  another  for  ships  of  commerce.  The  rate  of  tolls 
may  be  lower  upon  vessels  in  ballast  than  upon  vessels  carrying- 
passengers  or  cargo.  When  based  upon  net  registered  tonnage  for 
ships  of  commerce  the  tolls  shall  not  exceed  one  dollar  and  twenty- 
five  cents  per  net  registered  ton,  nor  be  less,  other  than  for  vessels 
of  the  United  States  and  its  citizens,  than  the  estimated  propor- 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORV    OF    THE   PANAMA    CANAL.  331 

tionate  cost  of  the  actual  maintenance  and  operation  of  the  cana] 
subject,  however,  to  the  provisions  of  article  nineteen  of  the  con- 
vention between  the  United  States  and  the  Republic  of  Panama, 
entered  into  November  eighteenth,  nineteen  hundred  and  three.  If 
the  tolls  shall  not  be  based  upon  net  registered  tonnage,  they  shall 
not  exceed  the  equivalent  of  one  dollar  and  twenty-five  cents  per 
net  registered  ton  as  nearly  as  the  same  may  be  determined,  nor  be 
less  than  the  equivalent  of  seventy-five  cents  per  net  registered  ton. 
The  toll  for  each  passenger  shall  not  be  more  than  one  dollar  and 
fifty  cents.  The  President  is  authorized  to  make  and  from  time  to 
time  amend  regulations  governing  the  operation  of  the  Panama 
Canal,  and  the  passage  and  control  of  vessels  through  the  same  or 
any  part  thereof,  including  the  locks  and  approaches  thereto,  and  all 
rules  and  regulations  affecting  pilots  and  pilotage  in  the  canal  or  the 
approaches  thereto  through  the  adjacent  waters. 

Such  regulations  shall  provide  for  prompt  adjustment  by  agree- 
ment and  immediate  payment  of  claims  for  damages  which  may 
arise  from  injury  to  vessels,  cargo,  or  passengers  from  the  passing  of 
vessels  through  the  locks  under  the  control  of  those  operating  them 
under  such  rules  and  regulations.  In  case  of  disagreement  suit  may 
be  brought  in  the  district  court  of  the  Canal  Zone  against  the  gov- 
ernor of  the  Panama  Canal.  Tiie  hearing  and  disposition  of  such 
cases  shall  be  expedited  and  the  judgment  shall  be  immediately 
paid  out  of  any  moneys  appropriated  or  allotted  for  canal  operation. 

The  President  shall  provide  a  method  for  the  determination  and 
adjustment  of  all  claims  arising  out  of  personal  injuries  to  employees 
thereafter  occurring  while  directly  engaged  in  actual  work  in  connec- 
tion with  the  construction,  maintenance,  operation,  or  sanitation  of 
the  canal  or  of  the  Panama  Railroad,  or  of  any  auxiliary  canals, 
locks,  or  other  works  necessary  and  convenient  for  the  construction, 
maintenance,  operation,  or  sanitation  of  the  canal,  whether  such 
injuries  result  in  death  or  not.  and  prescribe  a  schedule  of  compensa- 
tion therefor,  and  may  revise  and  modify  such  method  and  schedule 
at  anjr  time;  and  such  claims,  to  the  extent  they  shall  be  allowed  on 
such  adjustment,  if  allowed  at  all.  shall  be  paid  out  of  the  moneys 
hereafter  appropriated  for  that  purpose  or  out  of  the  funds  of  the 
Panama  Railroad  Company,  if  said  company  was  responsible  for 
said  injury,  as  the  case  may  require.  And  after  such  method 
and  schedule  shall  be  provided  by  the  President,  the  provisions  of 
the  Act  entitled  "An  Act  granting  to  certain  employees  of  the  United 
States  the  right  to  receive  from  it  compensation  for  injuries  sus- 
tained in  the  course  of  their  employment."  approved  May  thirtieth, 
nineteen  hundred  and  eight,  and  of  the  Act  entitled  "An  Act  relating 
to  injured  employees  on  the  Isthmian  Canal,"  approved  February 
twenty-fourth,  nineteen  hundred  and  nine,  shall  not  apply  to  per- 
sonal injuries  thereafter  received  and  claims  for  which  are  subject 
to  determination  and  adjustment  as  provided  in  this  section. 

Sec.  6.  That  the  President  is  authorized  to  cause  to  be  erected, 
maintained,  and  operated,  subject  to  the  International  Convention 
and  the  Act  of  Congress  to  regulate  radio-communication,  at  suitable 
places  along  the  Panama  Canal  and  the  coast  adjacent  to  its  two  ter- 
minals, in  connection  with  the  operation  of  said  canal,  such  wireles.- 
telegraphic  installations  as  he  may  deem  necessary  for  the  operation, 
maintenance,  sanitation,  and  protection  of  said  canal,  and  for  other 


332  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

purposes.  If  it  is  found  necessary  to  locate  such  installations  upon 
territory  of  the  Republic  of  Panama,  the  President  is  authorized  to 
make  such  agreement  with  said  Government  as  may  be  necessary, 
and  also  to  provide  for  the  acceptance  and  transmission,  by  said 
system,  of  all  private  and  commercial  messages,  and  those  of  the 
Government  of  Panama,  on  such  terms  and  for  such  tolls  as  the 
President  may  prescribe :  Provided,  That  the  messages  of  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  United  States  and  the  departments  thereof,  and  the  man- 
agement of  the  Panama  Canal,  shall  always  be  given  precedence  over 
all  other  messages.  The  President  is  also  authorized,  in  his  dis- 
cretion, to  enter  into  such  operating  agreements  or  leases  with  any 
private  wireless  company  or  companies  as  may  best  insure  freedom 
from  interference  with  the  wireless  telegraphic  installations  estab- 
lished by  the  United  States.  The  President  is  also  authorized  to 
establish,  maintain,  and  operate,  through  the  Panama  Railroad  Com- 
pany or  otherwise,  dry  docks,  repair  shops,  yards,  docks,  wharves, 
warehouses,  storehouses,  and  other  necessary  facilities  and  appur- 
tenances for  the  purpose  of  providing  coal  and  other  materials,  labor, 
repairs,  and  supplies  for  vessels  of  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  and,  incidentally,  for  supplying  such  at  reasonable  prices  to 
passing  vessels,  in  accordance  with  appropriations  hereby  authorized 
to  be  made  from  time  to  time  by  Congress  as  a  part  of  the  mainte- 
nance and  operation  of  the  said  canal.  Moneys  received  from  the 
conduct  of  said  business  may  be  expended  and  reinvested  for  such 
purposes  without  being  covered  into  the  Treasury  of  the  United 
States:  and  such  moneys  are  hereby  appropriated  for  such  purposes, 
but  all  deposits  of  such  funds  shall  be  subject  to  the  provisions  of 
existing  law  relating  to  the  deposit  of  other  public  funds  of  the 
United  States,  and  any  net  profits  accruing  from  such  business  shall 
annually  be  covered  into  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States.  Monthly 
reports  of  such  receipts  and  expenditures  shall  be  made  to  the 
President  by  the  persons  in  charge,  and  annual  reports  shall  be  made 
io  the  Congress. 

Sec.  7.  That  the  governor  of  the  Panama  Canal  shall,  in  connection 
with  the  operation  of  such  canal,  have  official  control  and  jurisdiction 
over  the  Canal  Zone  and  shall  perform  all  duties  in  connection  with 
the  civil  government  of  the  Canal  Zone,  which  is  to  be  held,  treated, 
and  governed  as  an  adjunct  of  such  Panama  Canal.  Unless  in  this 
Act  otherwise  provided  all  existing  laws  of  the  Canal  Zone  referring 
to  the  civil  governor  or  the  civil  administration  of  the  Canal  Zone 
shall  be  applicable  to  the  governor  of  the  Panama  Canal,  who  shall 
perform  all  such  executive  and  administrative  duties  required  by 
existing  law.  The  President  is  authorized  to  determine  or  cause  to 
be  determined  what  towns  shall  exist  in  the  Canal  Zone  and  sub- 
divide and  from  time  to  time  resubdivide  said  Canal  Zone  into  sub- 
divisions, to  be  designated  by  name  or  number,  so  that  there  shall  be 
situated  one  town  in  each  subdivision,  and  the  boundaries  of  each 
subdivision  shall  be  clearly  defined.  Tn  each  town  there  shall  be  a 
magistrate's  court  with  exclusive  original  jurisdiction  coextensive 
with  the  subdivision  in  which  it  is  situated  of  all  civil  cases  in  which 
the  principal  sum  claimed  does  not  exceed  three  hundred  dollars, 
and  all  criminal  cases  wherein  the  punishment  that  may  be  imposed 
shall  not  exceed  a  fine  of  one  hundred  dollars,  or  imprisonment  not 
exceeding  thirty  days,  or  both,  and  all  violations  of  police  regula- 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  333 

tions  and  ordinances  and  all  actions  involving  possession  or  title  to 
personal  property  or  the  forcible  entry  and  detainer  of  real  estate. 
Such  magistrates  shall  also  hold  preliminary  investigations  in 
charges  of  felony  and  offenses  under  section  ten  of  this  Act,  and 
commit  or  bail  in  bailable  cases  to  the  district  court.  A  sufficient 
number  of  magistrates  and  constables,  who  must  be  citizens  of  the 
United  States,  to  conduct  the  business  of  such  courts,  shall  be  ap- 
pointed by  the  governor  of  the  Panama  Canal  for  terms  of  four  years 
and  until  their  successors  are  appointed  and  qualified,  and  the  com- 
pensation of  such  persons  shall  be  fixed  by  the  President,  or  by 
his  authority,  until  such  time  as  Congress  may  by  law  regulate  the 
same.  The  rules  governing  said  courts  and  prescribing  the  duties 
of  said  magistrates  and  constables,  oaths  and  bonds,  the  times  and 
places  of  holding  such  courts,  the  disposition  of  fines,  costs,  forfeit- 
ures, enforcements  of  judgments,  providing  for  appeals  therefrom 
to  the  district  court,  and  the  disposition,  treatment,  and  pardon  of 
convicts  shall  be  established  by  order  of  the  President.  The  gov- 
ernor of  the  Panama  Canal  shall  appoint  all  notaries  public,  pre- 
scribe their  powers  and  duties,  their  official  seal,  and  the  fees  to  be 
charged  and  collected  by  them. 

Sec.  8.  That  there  shall  be  in  the  Canal  Zone  one  district  court 
with  two  divisions,  one  including  Balboa  and  the  other  including 
Cristobal;  and  one  district  judge  of  the  said  district,  who  shall  hold 
his  court  in  both  divisions  at  such  time  as  he  may  designate  by 
order,  at  least  once  a  month  in  each  division.  The  rules  of  practice 
in  such  district  court  shall  be  presented  or  amended  by  order  of 
the  President.  The  said  district  court  shall  have  original  jurisdic- 
tion of  all  felony  cases,  of  offenses  arising  under  section  ten  of  this 
Act,  all  causes  in  equity ;  admiralty  and  all  cases  at  law  involving 
principal  sums  exceeding  three  hundred  dollars  and  all  appeals  from 
judgments  rendered  in  magistrates'  courts.  The  jurisdiction  in 
admiralty  herein  conferred  upon  the  district  judge  and  the  district 
court  shall  be  the  same  that  is  exercised  by  the  United  States  dis- 
trict judges  and  the  United  States  district  courts,  and  the  procedure 
and  practice  shall  also  be  the  same.  The  district  court  or  the  judge 
thereof  shall  also  have  jurisdiction  of  all  other  matters  and  pro- 
ceedings not  herein  provided  for  which  are  now  within  the  juris- 
diction of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  Canal  Zone,  of  the  Circuit 
Court  of  the  Canal  Zone,  the  District  Court  of  the  Canal  Zone,  or 
the  judges  thereof.  Said  judge  shall  provide  for  the  selection, 
summoning,  serving,  and  compensation  of  jurors  from  among  the 
citizens  of  the  United  States,  to  be  subject  to  jury  duty  in  either 
division  of  such  district,  and  a  jury  shall  be  had  in  any  criminal 
case  or  civil  case  at  law  originating  in  said  court  on  the  demand 
of  either  party.  There  shall  be  a  district  attorney  and  a  marshal 
for  said  district.  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  district  attorney  to 
conduct  all  business,  civil  and  criminal,  for  the  Government,  and 
to  advise  the  governor  of  the  Panama  Canal  on  all  legal  questions 
touching  the  operation  of  the  canal  and  the  administration  of  civil 
affairs.  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  marshal  to  execute  all  process  of 
the  court,  preserve  order  therein,  and  do  all  things  incident  to  the 
office  of  marshal.  The  district  judge,  the  district  attorney,  and  the 
marshal  shall  be  appointed  by  the  President,  by  and  with  the  advice 


334  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE  PANAMA   CANAL. 

and  consent  of  the  Senate,  for  terms  of  four  years  each,  and  until 
their  successors  are  appointed  and  qualified,  and  during  their  terms 
of  office  shall  reside  within  the  Canal  Zone,  and  shall  hold  no  other 
office  nor  serve  on  any  official  board  or  commission  nor  receive  any 
emoluments  except  their  salaries.  The  district  judge  shall  receive 
the  same  salary  paid  the  district  judges  of  the  United  States,  and 
shall  appoint  the  clerk  of  said  court,  and  may  appoint  one  assistant 
when  necessary,  who  shall  receive  salaries  to  be  fixed  by  the  Presi- 
dent. The  district  judge  shall  be  entitled  to  six  weeks'  leave  of 
absence  each  year  with  pay.  During  his  absence  or  during  any 
period  of  disability  or  disqualification  from  sickness  or  otherwise 
to  discharge  his  duties  the  same  shall  be  temporarily  performed  by 
any  circuit  or  district  judge  of  the  United  State?  who  may  be  desig- 
nated by  the  President,  and  who.  during  such  service,  shall  receive 
the  additional  mileage  and  per  diem  allowed  by  law  to  district  judges 
of  the  United  States  when  holding  court  away  from  their  homes. 
The  district  attorney  and  the  marshal  shall  be  paid  each  a  salary  of 
five  thousand  dollars  per  annum. 

Sec.  9.  That  the  records  of  the  existing  courts  and  all  causes,  pro- 
ceedings, and  criminal  prosecutions  pending  therein  as  shown  by  the 
dockets  thereof,  except  as  herein  otherwise  provided,  shall  imme- 
diately upon  the  organization  of  the  courts  created  by  this  Act  be 
transferred  to  such  new  courts  having  jurisdiction  of  like  cases,  be 
entered  upon  the  dockets  thereof,  and  proceed  as  if  they  had  origi- 
nally  been  brought  therein,  whereupon  all  the  existing  courts,  except 
the  supreme  court  of  the  Canal  Zone,  shall  cease  to  exist.  The 
President  ma}-  continue  the  supreme  court  of  the  Canal  Zone  and 
retain  the  judges  thereof  in  office  for  such  time  as  to  him  may  seem 
ecessary  to  determine  finally  any  causes  and  proceedings  which 
may  be  pending  therein.  All  laws  of  the  Canal  Zone  imposing 
duties  upon  the  clerks  or  ministerial  officers  of  existing  courts  shall 
apply  and  impose  such  duties  upon  the  clerks  and  ministerial  officers 
of  the  new  courts  created  by  this  Act  having  jurisdiction  of  like  cases, 
matters,  and  duties. 

All  existing  laws  in  the  Canal  Zone  governing  practice  and  pro- 
cedure  in  existing  courts  shall  be  applicable  and  adapted  to  the 
practice  and  procedure  in  the  new  courts. 

The  Circuit  Court  of  Appeals  of  the  Fifth  Circuit  of  the  United 
States  shall  have  jurisdiction  to  review,  revise,  modify,  reverse,  or 
affirm  the  final  judgments  and  decrees  of  the  District  Court  of  the 
Canal  Zone  and  to  render  such  judgments  as  in  the  opinion  of  the 
said  appellate  court  should  have  been  rendered  by  the  trial  court  in 
all  actions  and  proceedings  in  which  the  Constitution,  or  any  statute, 
treaty,  title,  right,  or  privilege  of  the  United  States,  is  involved  and 
a  right  thereunder  denied,  and  in  cases  in  which  the  value  in  con- 
troversy exceeds  one  thousand  dollars,  to  be  ascertained  by  the  oath 
of  either  party,  or  by  other  competent  evidence,  and  also  in  criminal 
causes  Avherein  the  offenso  charjred  is  punishable  as  a  felony.  And 
such  appellate  jurisdiction,  subject  to  the  right  of  review  by  or 
appeal  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  as  in  other  cases 
authorized  by  law.  may  be  exercised  by  said  circuit  court  of  appeals 
in  the  same  manner,  under  the  same  regulations,  and  by  the  same 
procedure  as  nearly  as  practicable  ;is  is  done  in  reviewing  the  final 
judgment-  and  decrees  of  the  district  courts  of  the  United  States. 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  335 

Sec.  10.  That  after  the  Panama  Canal  shall  have  been  completed 
and  opened  for  operation  the  governor  of  the  Panama  Canal  shall 
have  the  right  to  make  such  rules  and  regulations,  subject  to  the 
approval  of  the  President,  touching  the  right  of  any  person  to  re- 
main upon  or  pass  over  any  part  of  the  Canal  Zone  as  may  be 
necessary.  Any  person  violating  any  of  such  rules  or  regulations 
shall  be  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor,  and  on  conviction  in  the  District 
Court  of  the  Canal  Zone  shall  be  punished  by  a  fine  not  exceeding 
five  hundred  dollars  or  by  imprisonment  not  exceeding  a  year,  or 
both,  in  the  discretion  of  the  court.  It  shall  be  unlawful  for  any 
person,  by  any  means  or  in  any  way,  to  injure  or  obstruct,  or  attempt 
to  injure  or  obstruct,  any  part  of  the  Panama  Canal  or  the  locks 
thereof  or  the  approaches  thereto.  Any  person  violating  this  provi- 
sion shall  be  guilty  of  a  felony,  and  on  conviction  in  the  District 
Court  of  the  Canal  Zone  shall  be  punished  by  a  fine  not  exceeding 
ten  thousand  dollars  or  by  imprisonment  not  exceeding  twenty  years, 
or  both,  in  the  discretion  of  the  court.  If  the  act  shall  cause  the 
death  of  any  person  within  a  year  and  a  day  thereafter,  the  person 
so  convicted  shall  be  guilty  of  murder  and  shall  be  punished  accord- 
ingly. 

Sec.  11.  That  section  five  of  the  Act  to  regulate  commerce, 
approved  February  fourth,  eighteen  hundred  and  eighty-seven,  as 
heretofore  amended,  is  hereby  amended  by  adding  thereto  a  new 
paragraph  at  the  end  thereof,  as  follows: 

"  From  and  after  the  first  day  of  July,  nineteen  hundred  and  four- 
teen, it  shall  be  unlawful  for  any  railroad  company  or  other  common 
carrier  subject  to  the  Act  to  regulate  commerce  to  own,  lease,  operate, 
control,  or  have  any  interest  whatsoever  (by  stock  ownership  or  other- 
wise, either  directly,  indirectly,  through  any  holding  company,  or  by 
stockholders  or  directors  in  common,  or  in  any  other  manner)  in  any 
common  carrier  by  water  operated  through  the  Panama  Canal  or 
elsewhere  with  which  said  railroad  or  other  carrier  aforesaid  does  or 
may  compete  for  traffic  or  any  vessel  carrying  freight  or  passengers 
upon  said  water  route  or  elsewhere  with  which  said  railroad  or  other 
carrier  aforesaid  does  or  may  compete  for  traffic;  and  in  case  of  the 
violation  of  this  provision  each  day  in  which  such  violation  continues 
shall  be  deemed  a  separate  offense." 

Jurisdiction  is  hereby  conferred  on  the  Interstate  Commerce  Com- 
mission to  determine  questions  of  fact  as  to  the  competition  or  possi- 
bility of  competition,  after  full  hearing,  on  the  application  of  any  rail- 
road company  or  other  carrier.  Such  application  may  be  filed  for  the 
purpose  of  determining  whether  any  existing  service  is  in  violation  of 
this  section  and  pray  for  an  order  permitting  the  continuance  of  any 
vessel  or  vessels  already  in  operation,  or  for  the  purpose  of  asking  an 
order  to  install  new  service  not  in  conflict  with  the  provisions  of  this 
paragraph.  The  commission  may  on  its  own  motion  or  the  applica- 
tion of  any  shipper  institute  proceedings  to  inquire  into  the  operation 
of  any  vessel  in  use  by  any  railroad  or  other  carrier  which  has  not 
applied  to  the  commission  and  had  the  question  of  competition  or  the 
possibility  of  competition  determined  as  herein  provided.  In  all  such 
cases  the  order  of  said  commission  shall  be  final. 

If  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission  shall  be  of  the  opinion 
that  any  such  existing  specified  service  by  water  other  than  through 
the  Panama  Canal  is  being  operated  in  the  interest  of  the  public  and 


336  DIPLOMATIC    HISTOKY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

is  of  advantage  to  the  convenience  and  commerce  of  the  people,  and 
that  such  extension  will  neither  exclude,  prevent,  nor  reduce  compe- 
tition on  the  route  by  water  under  consideration,  the  Interstate  Com- 
merce Commission  may,  by  order,  extend  the  time  during  which  such 
service  by  water  may  continue  to  be  operated  beyond  July  first,  nine- 
teen hundred  and  fourteen.  In  every  case  of  such  extension  the  rates, 
schedules,  and  practices  of  such  water  carrier  shall  be  filed  with  the 
Interstate  Commerce  Commission  and  shall  be  subject  to  the  act  to 
regulate  commerce  and  all  amendments  thereto  in  the  same  manner 
and  to  the  same  extent  as  is  the  railroad  or  other  common  carrier 
controlling  such  water  carrier  or  interested  in  any  manner  in  its  oper- 
ation: Provided,  Any  application  for  extension  under  the  terms  of 
this  provision  filed  with  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission  prior 
to  July  first,  nineteen  hundred  and  fourteen,  but  for  any  reason  not 
heard  and  disposed  of  before  said  date,  may  be  considered  and  granted 
thereafter. 

No  vessel  permitted  to  engage  in  the  coastwise  or  foreign  trade  of 
the  United  States  shall  be  permitted  to  enter  or  pass  through  said 
canal  if  such  ship  is  owned,  chartered,  operated,  or  controlled  by  any 
person  or  company  which  is  doing  business  in  violation  of  the  provi- 
sions of  the  Act  of  Congress  approved  July  second,  eighteen  hundred 
and  ninety,  entitled  "An  Act  to  protect  trade  and  commerce  against 
unlawful  restraints  and  monopolies,"  or  the  provisions  of  sections 
seventy-three  to  seventy-seven,  both  inclusive,  of  an  Act  approved 
August  twenty-seventh,  eighteen  hundred  and  ninety-four,  entitled 
"An  Act  to  reduce  taxation,  to  provide  revenue  for  the  Government, 
and  for  other  purposes,"  or  the  provisions  of  any  other  Act  of  Con- 
gress amending  or  supplementing  the  said  Act  of  July  second,  eighteen 
hundred  and  ninety,  commonly  known  as  the  Sherman  Antitrust  Act, 
and  amendments  thereto,  or  said  sections  of  the  Act  of  August  twenty- 
seventh,  eighteen  hundred  and  ninety-four.  The  question  of  fact 
may  be  determined  by  the  judgment  of  any  court  of  the  United  States 
of  competent  jurisdiction  in  any  cause  pending  before  it  to  which  the 
owners  or  operators  of  such  ship  are  parties.  Suit  may  be  brought 
by  any  shipper  or  by  the  Attorney  General  of  the  United  States. 

That  section  six  of  said  Act  to  regulate  commerce,  as  heretofore 
amended,  is  hereby  amended  by  adding  a  new  paragraph  at  the  end 
thereof,  as  follows: 

"  When  property  may  be  or  is  transported  from  point  to  point  in 
the  United  States  by  rail  and  water  through  the  Panama  Canal  or 
otherwise,  the  transportation  being  by  a  common  carrier  or  carriers, 
and  not  entirely  within  the  limits  of  a  single  State,  the  Interstate 
Commerce  Commission  shall  have  jurisdiction  of  such  transportation 
and  of  the  carriers,  both  by  rail  and  by  water,  which  may  or  do  en- 
gage in  the  same,  in  the  following  particulars,  in  addition  to  the 
jurisdiction  given  by  the  Act  to  regulate  commerce,  as  amended  June 
eighteenth,  nineteen  hundred  and  ten: 

"(a)  To  establish  physical  connection  between  the  lines  of  the  rail 
carrier  and  the  dock  of  the  water  carrier  by  directing  the  rail  carrier 
to  make  suitable  connection  between  its»  line  and  a  track  or  tracks 
which  has  been  constructed  from  the  dock  to  the  limits  of  its  right 
of  way,  or  by  directing  either  or  both  the  rail  and  water  carrier,  indi- 
vidually or  in  connection  with  one  another,  to  construct  and  connect 
with  the  lines  of  the  rail  carrier  a  spur  track  or  tracks  ,to  the  dock. 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  337 

This  provision  shall  only  apply  where  such  connection  is  reasonably 
practicable,  can  be  made  with  safety  to  the  public,  and  where  the 
amount  of  business  to  be  handled  is  sufficient  to  justify  the  outlay. 

"  The  commission  shall  have  full  authority  to  determine  the  terms 
and  conditions  upon  which  these  connecting  tracks,  when  constructed, 
shall  be  operated,  and  it  may,  either  in  the  construction  or  the  opera- 
tion of  such  tracks,  determine  what  sum  shall  be  paid  to  or  by  either 
carrier.  The  provisions  of  this  paragraph  shall  extend  to  cases  where 
the  dock  is  owned  by  other  parties  than  the  carrier  involved. 

"  (b)  To  establish  through  routes  and  maximum  joint  rates  between 
and  over  such  rail  and  water  lines,  and  to  determine  all  the  terms  and 
conditions  under  which  such  lines  shall  be  operated  in  the  handling 
of  the  traffic  embraced. 

"(c)  To  establish  maximum  proportional  rates  by  rail  to  and  from 
the  ports  to  which  the  traffic  is  brought,  or  from  which  it  is  taken  by 
the  water  carrier,  and  to  determine  to  what  traffic  and  in  connection 
with  what  vessels  and  upon  what  terms  and  conditions  such  rates 
shall  apply.  By  proportional  rates  are  meant  those  which  differ  from 
the  corresponding  local  rates  to  and  from  the  port  and  which  apply 
only  to  traffic  Avhich  has  been  brought  to  the  port  or  is  carried  from 
the  port  by  a  common  carrier  bv  water. 

"(d)  If  any  rail  carrier  subject  to  the  Act  to  regulate  commerce 
enters  into  arrangements  with  any  water  carrier  operating  from  a 
port  in  the  United  States  to  a  foreign  country,  through  the  Panama 
Canal  or  otherwise,  for  the  handling  of  through  business  between  in- 
terior points  of  the  United  States  and  such  foreign  country,  the  In- 
terstate Commerce  Commission  may  require  such  railway  to  enter 
into  similar  arrangements  with  any  or  all  other  lines  of  steamships 
operating  from  said  port  to  the  same  foreign  country." 

The  orders  of  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission  relating  to  this 
section  shall  only  be  made  upon  formal  complain  or  in  proceedings 
instituted  by  the  commission  of  its  own  motion  and  after  full  hearing. 
The  orders  provided  for  in  the  two  amendments  to  the  Act  to  regulate 
commerce  enacted  in  this  section  shall  be  served  in  the  same  manner 
and  enforced  by  the  same  penalties  and  proceedings  as  are  the  orders 
of  the  commission  made  under  the  provisions  of  section  fifteen  of  the 
Act  to  regulate  commerce,  as  amended  June  eighteenth,  nineteen 
hundred  and  ten,  and  they  may  be  conditioned  for  the  payment  of 
any  sum  or  the  giving  of  security  for  the  payment  of  any  sum  or  the 
discharge  of  any  obligation  which  may  be  required  by  the  terms  of 
said  order. 

Sec.  12.  That  all  laws  and  treaties  relating  to  the  extradition  of 
persons  accused  of  crime  in  force  in  the  United  States,  to  the  extent 
that  they  may  not  be  in  conflict  with  or  superseded  by  any  special 
treaty  entered  into  between  the  United  States  and  the  Republic  of 
Panama  with  respect  to  the  Canal  Zone,  and  all  laws  relating  to  the 
rendition  of  fugitives  from  justice  as  between  the  several  States  and 
Territories  of  the  United  States,  shall  extend  to  and  be  considered  in 
force  in  the  Canal  Zone,  and  of  such  purposes  and  such  purposes  only 
the  Canal  Zone  shall  be  considered  and  treated  as  an  organized 
Territory  of  the  United  States. 

Sec.  13.  That  in  time  of  war  in  which  the  United  States  shall  be 
engaged,  or  when,  in  the  opinion  of  the  President,  war  is  imminent, 
42112— S.  Doe.  474,  63-2 22 


338  DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

such  officer  of  the  Army  as  the  President  may  designate  shall,  upon 
the  order  of  the  President,  assume  and  have  exclusive  authority  and 
jurisdiction  over  the  operation  of  the  Panama  Canal  and  all  of  its 
adjuncts,  appendants,  and  appurtenances,  including  the  entire  control 
and  government  of  the  Canal  Zone,  and  during  a  continuance  of  such 
condition  the  governor  of  the  Panama  Canal  shall,  in  all  respects  and 
particulars  as  to  the  operation  of  such  Panama  Canal,  and  all  duties, 
matters,  and  transactions  affecting  the  Canal  Zone,  be  subject  to  the 
order  and  direction  of  such  officer  of  the  Army. 

Sec.  14.  That  this  Act  shall  be  known  as,  and  referred  to  as,  the 
Panama  Canal  Act,  and  the  right  to  alter,  amend,  or  repeal  any  or  all 
of  its  provisions  or  to  extend,  modify,  or  annul  any  rule  or  regulation 
made  under  its  authority  is  expressly  reserved. 

Approved,  August  24,  1912. 


No.  9. 
MEMORANDUM  TO  ACCOMPANY  THE  PANAMA  CANAL  ACT. 

In  signing  the  Panama  Canal  bill,  I  wish  to  leave  this  memo- 
randum. The  bill  is  admirably  drawn  for  the  purpose  of  securing 
the  proper  maintenance,  operation  and  control  of  the  canal,  and 
the  government  of  the  Canal  Zone,  and  for  the  furnishing,  to  all  the 
patrons  of  the  canal,  through  the  Government,  of  the  requisite 
docking  facilities  and  the  supply  of  coal  and  other  shipping  neces- 
sities. It  is  absolutely  necessary  to  have  the  bill  passed  at  this- 
session,  in  order  that  the  capital  of  the  world  engaged  in  the  prepara- 
tion of  ships  to  use  the  canal  may  know  in  advance  the  conditions 
under  which  the  traffic  is  to  be  carried  on  through  this  waterway. 

I  wish  to  consider  the  objections  to  the  bill  in  the  order  of  their 
importance. 

First,  the  bill  is  objected  to  because  it  is  said  to  violate  the  Hay- 
Pauncefote  Treaty  in  discriminating  in  favor  of  the  coastwise  trade 
of  the  United  States,  by  providing  that  no  tolls  shall  be  charged  to 
vessels  engaged  in  that  trade  passing  through  the  canal.  This  is  the 
subject  of  a  protest  by  the  British  Government. 

The  British  protest  involves  the  right  of  the  Congress  of  the 
United  States  to  regulate  its  domestic  and  foreign  commerce  in  such 
manner  as  to  the  Congress  may  seem  wise,  and  specifically  the  pro- 
test challenges  the  right  of  the  Congress  to  exempt  American  ship- 
ping from  the  payment  of  tolls  for  the  use  of  the  Panama  Canal, 
or  to  refund  to  such  American  ships  the  tolls  which  they  may  have 
paid,  and  this  without  regard  to  the  trade  in  which  such  ships  are 
employed,  whether  coastwise  or  foreign.  The  protest  states  "  the 
proposal  to  exempt  all  American  shipping  from  the  payment  of  the 
rolls  would  in  the  opinion  of  His  Majesty's  Government,  involve  an 
infraction  of  the  treaty  (Hay-Pauncefote).  nor  is  there,  in  their 
opinion,  any  difference  in  principle  between  charging  tolls  only  to 
refund  them  and  remitting  tolls  altogether.  The  result  is  the  same 
in  either  case  and  the  adoption  of  the  alternative  method  of  refund- 
ing tolls  in  preference  of  remitting  them,  while  perhaps  complying 
with  the  letter  of  the  treaty,  would  still  controvert  its  spirit ". 
The  provision  of  the  Hay-Pauncefote  Treaty  involved  is  contained 
in  Article  Third,  which  provides: 

The  United  States  adopts,  as  the  basis  of  the  neutralization  of  such  ship 
canal,  the  following  rules,  substantially  a?  embodied  in  the  convention  of  Con- 
stantinople, signed  the  2Sth  October,  1888.  for  the  free  navigation  of  the  Suez 
Canal,  that  is  to  say : 

1.  The  canal  sball  be  free  and  open  to  the  vessels  of  commerce  and  of  war 
of  all  nations  observing  these  rules,  on  terms  of  entire  equality,  so  that  there 
shall  be  no  discrimination  against  any  such  nation,  or  its  citizens  or  subjects, 
in  respect  of  the  conditions  or  charges  of  traffic,  or  otherwise.  Such  condi- 
tions and  charges  of  traffic  shall  be  just  and  equitable. 

Then  follows  five  other  rules  to  be  observed  by  other  nations  to 
make  neutralization  effective,  the  observance  of  which  is  the  condi- 
tion for  the  privilege  of  using  the  canal, 

339 


340  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE  PANAMA   CANAL, 

In  view  of  the  fact  that  the  Panama  (anal  is  being  constructed 
by  the  United  States  wholly  at  its  own  cost,  upon  territory  ceded 
to  it  by  the  Republic  of  Panama  for  that  purpose,  and  that  unless 
it  has  restricted  itself  the  United  States  enjoy.-,  absolute  rights  of 
ownership  and  control,  including  the  right  to  allow  its  own  com- 
merce the  use  of  the  canal  upon  such  terms  as  it  sees  fit,  the  sole 
question  is,  has  the  United  State-  in  the  language  above  quoted 
from  the  Hay-Pauncefote  Treaty  deprived  itself  of  the  exercise  of 
the  right  to  pass  its  own  commerce  free  or  to  remit  tolls  collected 
for  the  use  of  the  canal. 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  rules  specified  in  Article  3  of  the  treaty 
were  adopted  by  the  United  States  for  a  specific  purpose,  namely,  as 
the  basis  of  the  neutralization  of  the  canal  and  for  no  other  purpose. 
The  Article  is  a  declaration  of  policy  by  the  United  States  that  the 
canal  shall  be  neutral,  that  the  attitude  of  this  Government  towards 
the  commerce  of  the  world  is  that  all  nations  will  be  treated  alike 
and  no  discrimination  made  by  the  United  States  against  any  one  of 
them  observing  the  rules  adopted  by  the  United  States.  The  right 
to  the  use  of  the  canal  and  to  equality  of  treatment  in  the  use  de- 
pends upon  the  observance  of  the  conditions  of  the  use  by  the  nations 
to  whom  we  extended  that  privilege.  The  privileges  of  all  nations  to 
whom  we  extended  the  use  upon  the  observance  of  these  conditions 
were  to  be  equal  to  that  extended  to  any  one  of  them  which  observed 
the  conditions.  In  other  words,  it  was  a  conditional  favored  nation 
treatment,  the  measure  of  which  in  the  absence  of  express  stipla- 
tion  to  that  effect,  is  not  what  the  country  gives  to  its  own  nationals, 
but  the  treatment  it  extends  to  other  nations. 

Thus  it  is  seen  that  the  rules  are  but  a  basis  of  neutralization, 
intended  to  effect  the  neutrality  which  the  United  States  was  willing 
should  be  the  character  of  the  canal  and  not  intended  to  limit  or 
hamper  the  United  States  in  the  exercise  of  its  sovereign  power  to 
deal  with  its  own  commerce  using  its  own  canal  in  whatsoever  man- 
ner it  saw  fit. 

If  there  is  no  "  difference  in  principle  between  the  United  States 
charging  tolls  to  its  own  shipping  only  to  refund  them  and  remitting 
tolls  altogether,"  as  the  British  protest  declares,  then  the  irresistible 
conclusion  is  that  the  United  States,  although  it  owns,  controls  and 
has  paid  for  the  canal  is  restricted  by  treaty  from  aiding  its  own 
commerce  in  the  way  that  all  the  other  nations  of  the  world  may 
freely  do.  It  would  scarcely  be  claimed  that  the  setting  out  in  a 
treaty  between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  of  certain  rules 
adopted  by  the  United  States  as  the  basis  of  the  neutralization  of 
the  canal  would  bind  any  government  to  do  or  refrain  from  doing 
anything  other  than  the  things  required  by  the  rules  to  insure  the 
privilege  of  use  and  freedom  from  discrimination.  Since  the  rules 
do  not  provide  as  a  condition  for  the  privilege  of  use  upon  equal 
terms  with  other  nations  that  other  nations  desiring  to  build  up  a 
particular  trade  involving  the  use  of  the  canal  shall  not  either 
directly  agree  to  pay  the  tolls  or  to  refund  to  its  ships  the  tolls  col- 
lected for  the  use  of  the  canal,  it  is  evident  that  the  treaty  does  not 
affect  that  inherent,  sovereign  right,  unless,  which  is  not  likely,  it  be 
claimed  that  the  promulgation  by  the  United  States  of  these  rules 
insuring  all  nations  against  its  discrimination,  would  authorize  the 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTOBY    OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  341 

United  States  to  pass  upon  the  action  of  other  nations  and  require 
that  no  one  of  them  should  grant  to  its  shipping  larger  subsidies  or 
more  liberal  inducement  for  the  use  of  the  canal  than  were  granted 
by  others.  In  other  words,  that  the  United  States  has  the  power  to 
equalize  the  practice  of  other  nations  in  this  regard. 

If  it  is  correct  then  to  assume  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  Hay- 
Pauncefote  Treaty  preventing  Great  Britain  and  the  other  nations 
from  extending  such  favors  as  they  may  see  fit  to  their  shipping 
using  the  canal,  and  doing  it  in  the  way  they  see  fit,  and  if  it  is  also 
right  to  assume  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  treaty  that  gives  the 
United  States  any  supervision  over,  or  right  to  complain  of  such 
action,  then  the  British  protest  leads  to  the  absurd  conclusion  that 
this  Government  in  constructing  the  canal,  maintaining  the  canal, 
and  defending  the  canal,  finds  itself  shorn  of  its  right  to  deal  with 
it-  own  commerce  in  it-  own  way.  while  all  other  nations  using  the 
canal  in  competition  with  American  commerce  enjoys  that  right  and 
power  unimpaired. 

The  British  protest,  therefore,  i.-  a  proposal  to  read  into  the 
treaty  a  surrender  by  the  United  States  of  its  right  to  regulate  its 
own  commerce  in  it.-  own  way  and  by  its  own  methods,  a  right 
Avhich  neither  Great  Britain  herself,  nor  any  other  nation  that  may 
use  the  canal,  ha.-  surrendered  or  proposes  to  surrender.  The  sur- 
render <<f  this  right  j.-  not  claimed  to  be  in  terms.  It  is  only  to  be 
inferred  from  the  fact  that  the  United  States  has  conditionally 
granted  to  all  the  nations  the  use  of  the  canal  without  discrimination 
by  the  United  States  between  the  grantees,  but  as  the  treaty  leaves 
all  nations  desiring  to  use  the  canal  with  full  right  to  deal  with 
their  own  vessels  as  they  see  fit.  the  United  States  would  only  be 
discriminating  against,  itself  if  it  were  to  recognize  the  soundness 
of  the  British  contention. 

The  bill  here  in  question  does  not  positively  do  more  than  to 
discriminate  in  favor  of  the  coastwise  trade,  and  the  British  protest 
seems  to  recognize  a  distinction  between  such  exemption  and  the 
exemption  of  American  vessels  engaged  in  foreign  trade.  In  effect, 
of  course,  there  is  a  substantial  and  practical  difference.  The  Ameri- 
can vessels  in  foreign  trade  come  into  competition  with  vessels  of 
other  nations  in  that  same  trade,  while  foreign  vessels  are  forbidden 
to  engage  in  the  American  coastwise  trade.  While  the  bill  here  in 
question  seems  to  vest  the  President  with  discretion  to  discriminate 
in  fixing  tolls  in  favor  of  American  ships  and  against  foreign  ships 
engaged  in  foreign  trade,  within  the  limitation  of  the  range  from 
fifty  cents  a  ton  to  $l.-2.">  a  net  ton,  there  is  nothing  in  the  act  to  com- 
pel  the  President  to  make  such  a  discrimination.  It  is  not,  therefore, 
necessary  to  discuss  the  policy  of  such  discrimination  until  the  ques- 
tion may  arise  in  the  exercise  of  the  President's  discretion. 

The  policy  of  exempting  the  coastwise  trade  from  all  tolls  really 
involves  the  question  of  granting  a  Government  subsidy  for  the  pur- 
pose of  encouraging  that  trade  in  competition  with  the  trade  of  the 
trans-continental  railroads.  I  approve  this  policy.  It  is  in  accord 
with  the  historical  course  of  the  Government  in  giving  government 
aid  to  the  construction  of  the  trans-continental  roads.  It  is  now 
merely  giving  Government  aid  to  a  means  of  transportation  that 
competes  with  those  trans-continental  roads. 


312  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL. 

Second,  the  bill  permits  the  registry  of  foreign-built  vessels  as 
vessels  of  the  United  States  for  foreign  trade,  and  it  also  permits 
the  admission,  without  duty,  of  materials  for  the  construction  and 
repair  of  vessels  in  the  United  States.  This  is  objected  to  on  the 
ground  that  it  will  interfere  with  the  ship-building  interests  of  the 
United  States.  I  can  not  concur  in  this  view.  The  number  of 
vessels  of  the  United  States  engaged  in  foreign  trade  is  so  small 
that  the  work  done  by  the  present  shipyards  is  almost  wholly  that 
of  constructing  vessels  for  the  coastwise  trade  or  government  ves- 
sels. In  other  words,  there  is  substantially  no  business  for  building 
ships  in  the  foreign  trade  in  the  shipyards  of  the  United  States 
which  will  be  injured  by  this  new  provision.  Tt  is  hoped  that  this 
registry  of  foreign-built  ships  in  American  foreign  trades  will  prove 
to  be  a  method  of  increasing  our  foreign  shipping.  The  experiment 
will  hurt  no  interest  of  ours,  and  we  can  observe  its  operation,.  If  it 
proves  to  extend  our  commercial  flag  to  the  high  seas,  ii  will  supply 
a  long-felt  want. 

Third.  Section  5  of  the  interstate  commerce  act  is  amended  by 
forbidding  railroad  companies  to  own,  lease,  operate,  control  or  have 
any  interest  in  any  common  carrier  by  water  operated  through  the 
Panama  Canal,  with  which  such  railroad  or  other  carrier  does  or  may 
compete  for  traffic.  I  have  twice  recommended  such  restriction  as  to 
the  Panama  Canal.  It  was  urged  upon  me  that  the  Interstate  Com- 
merce Commission  might  control  the  trade  so  as  to  prevent  an  abuse 
from  the  joint  ownership  of  railroads  and  of  Panama  steamships 
competing  with  each  other,  and,  therefore,  that  this  radical  provision 
was  not  necessary.  Conference  with  the  Interstate  Commerce  Com- 
mission, however,  satisfied  me  that  such  control  would  not  be  as 
effective  as  this  restriction.  The  difficulty  is  that  the  interest  of  the 
railroad  company  is  so  much  larger  in  its  railroad  and  in  the  main- 
tenance of  its  railroad  rates  than  in  making  a  profit  out  of  the  steam- 
ship line  that  it  can  afford  temporarily  to  run  its  vessels  for  nearly 
nothing,  in  order  to  drive  out  of  the  business,  independent  steamship 
lines  and  thus  obtain  complete  control  of  the  shipping  in  the  trade 
through  the  canal  and  regulate  the  rates  according  to  the  interest  of 
the  railroad  company.  Jurisdiction  is  conferred  on  the  Interstate 
Commerce  Commission  finally  to  determine  the  question  of  fact  as  to 
the  competition  or  possibility  of  competition  of  the  water  carrier  with 
the  railroad,  and  this  may  be  done  in  advance  of  any  investment  of 
capital. 

Fourth.  The  effect  of  the  amendment  of  Section  5  of  the  Inter- 
state Commerce  Act  also  is  extended  so  as  to  make  it  unlawful  for 
railroad  companies  owning  or  controlling  lines  of  steamships  in  any 
other  part  of  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States  to  continue  to  do 
so,  and  as  to  such  railroad  companies  and  such  water  carriers,  the 
Interstate  Commerce  Commission  is  given  the  duty  and  power  not 
only  finally  to  determine  the  question  of  competition  or  possibility 
of  competition,  but  also  to  determine  "that  the  specified  service  by 
water  is  being  operated  in  the  interest  of  the  public  and  is  of  advan- 
tage to  the  convenience  and  commerce  of  the  people,  and  that  such 
extension  will  neither  exclude,  prevent,  nor  reduce  competition  on 
the  route  by  water  under  consideration  " ;  and  if  it  finds  this  to  be 
the  case,  to  extend  the  time  during  which  such  service  by  water  may 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA   CANAL.  343 

continue  beyond  the  date  fixed  in  the  act  for  its  first  operation,  to 
wit,  July  1,  1914.  Whenever  the  time  is  extended,  then  the  water 
carrier,  its  rates  and  schedules  and  practices  are  brought  within  the 
control  of  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission.  How  far  it  is 
within  the  power  of  Congress  to  delegate  to  the  Interstate  Commerce 
Commission  such  wide  discretion,  it  is  unnecessary  now  to  discuss. 
There  is  ample  time  between  now  and  the  time  of  this  provision  of 
the  act's  going  into  effect  to  have  the  matter  examined  by  the 
Supreme  Court,  or  to  change  the  form  of  the  legislation,  should  it 
be  deemed  necessary.  Certainly  the  suggested  invalidity  of  this  sec- 
tion, if  true,  would  not  invalidate  the  entire  act,  the  remainder  of 
which  may  well  stand  without  regard  to  this  provision. 

Fifth.  The  final  objection  is  to  a  provision  which  prevents  the 
owner  of  any  steamship  who  is  guilty  of  violating  the  anti-trust  law 
from  using  the  canal.  It  is  quite  evident  that  this  section  applies 
only  to  those  vessels  engaged  in  the  trade  in  which  there  is  a  mo- 
nopoly contrary  to  our  Federal  statute,  and  it  is  a  mere  injunctive 
process  against  the  continuance  of  such  monopolistic  trade.  It  adds 
the  penalty  of  denying  the  use  of  the  canal  to  a  person  or  corpora- 
tion violating  the  anti-trust  law.  It  may  have  some  practical  opera- 
tion where  the  business  monopolized  is  transportation  by  ships,  but 
it  does  not  become  operative  to  prevent  the  use  of  the  canal  until 
the  decree  of  the  court  shall  have  established  the  fact  of  the  guilt  of 
the  owner  of  the  vessel.  While  the  penalties  of  the  anti-trust  law 
seem  to  me  to  be  quite  sufficient  already,  I  do  not  know  that  this 
new  remedy  against  a  particular  kind  of  a  trust  may  not  sometimes 
prove  useful. 

In  a  message  sent  to  Congress,  after  this  bill  had  passed  both 
Houses,  I  ventured  to  suggest  a  possible  amendment  by  which  all 
persons,  and  especially  all  British  subjects,  who  felt  aggrieved  by 
the  provisions  of  the  bill,  on  the  ground  that  they  are  in  viola- 
tion of  the  Hay-Pauncefote  Treaty,  might  try  that  question  in  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States.  I  think  this  would  have  satis- 
fied those  who  oppose  the  view  which  Congress  evidently  entertains 
of  the  treaty,  and  might  avoid  the  necessity  for  either  diplomatic 
negotiation  or  further  decision  by  an  arbitral  tribunal.  Congress, 
however,  has  not  thought  it  wise  to  accept  the  suggestion,  and,  there- 
fore, I  must  proceed  in  the  view,  which  I  have  expressed  and  am  con- 
vinced is  the  correct  one,  as  to  the  proper  construction  of  the  treaty 
and  the  limitations  which  it  imposes  upon  the  United  States.  I  do 
not  find  that  the  bill  here  in  question  violates  those  limitations. 

On  the  whole,  I  believe  the  bill  to  be  one  of  the  most  beneficial 
that  has  passed  this  or  any  other  Congress,  and  I  find  no  reason  in 
the  objections  made  to  the  bill  which  should  lead  me  to  delay  until 
another  session  of  Congress,  provisions  that  are  imperatively  needed 
now  in  order  that  due  preparation  by  the  world  may  be  made  for 
the  opening  of  the  canal. 

Wm  H  Taft 

The  White  House,  Augwt  24, 19W. 


No.  10. 
PRESIDENT'S  PROCLAMATION  RELATING  TO  CANAL  TOLL  RATES. 

[No.  1225.] 

By  the  President  or  the  United  States  of  America. 

a  proclamation. 

I,  William  Howard  Taft,  President  of  the  United  States  of 
America,  by  virtue  of  the  power  and  authority  vested  in  me  by  the 
Act  of  Congress,  approved  August  twenty-fourth,  nineteen  hundred 
and  twelve,  to  provide  for  the  opening,  maintenance,  protection  and 
operation  of  the  Panama  Canal  and  the  sanitation  and  government 
of  the  Canal  Zone,  do  hereby  prescribe  and  proclaim  the  following 
rates  of  toll  to  be  paid  by  vessels  using  the  Panama  Canal : 

1.  On  merchant  vessels  carrying  passengers  or  cargo  one  dollar 
and  twenty  cents  ($1.20)  per  net  vessel  ton — each  "one  hundred 
(100)  cubic  feet — of  actual  earning  capacity. 

2.  On  vessels  in  ballast  without  passengers  or  cargo  forty  (40) 
percent  less  than  the  rate  of  tolls  for  vessels  with  passengers  or 
cargo. 

3.  Upon  naval  vessels,  other  -than  transports,  colliers,  hospital 
ships  and  supply  ships,  fifty  (50)  cents  per  displacement  ton. 

4.  Upon  army  and  navy  transports,  colliers,  hospital  ships  and 
supply  ships  one  dollar  and  twenty  cents  ($1.20)  per  net  ton,  the 
vessels  to  be  measured  by  the  same  rules  as  are  employed  in  deter- 
mining the  net  tonnage  of  merchant  vessels. 

The  Secretary  of  War  will  prepare  and  prescribe  such  rules  for 
the  measurement  of  vessels  and  such  regulations  as  may  be  neces- 
sary and  proper  to  carry  this  proclamation  into  full  force  and 
effect. 

In  witness  whereof,  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  caused  the 
seal  of  the  United  States  to  be  affixed. 

Done  at  the  City  of  Washington  this  thirteenth  day  of  November 
in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  nine  hundred  and  twelve  and 
of  the  independence  of  the  United  Statpc*  the  one  hundred  and  thirty- 
seventh. 

[seal.]  Wm  H  Taft 

Bv  the  President: 
P  C  Knox 

Secretary  of  State. 

344 


No.  11. 

PEESIDENT'S    MESSAGE    GIVING    CORRESPONDENCE    ON    REVO- 
LUTION ON  ISTHMUS  OF  PANAMA. 

[House  Document  No.  8,  Fifty-eighth  Congress,  first  session.] 

CORRESPONDENCE,   ETC.,   RELATING   TO   THE  RECENT   REVOLUTION 
ON  THE  ISTHMUS  OF  PANAMA. 

MESSAGE  FROM  THE  PRESIDENT  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES,  TRANSMITTING,  IN 
RESPONSE  TO  RESOLUTION  OF  THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES  OF 
NOVEMBER  9,  1903,  ALL  CORRESPONDENCE  AND  OTHER  OFFICIAL  DOCU- 
MENTS RELATING  TO  THE  RECENT  REVOLUTION  ON  THE  ISTHMUS  OF 
PANAMA. 

[November    16.    1903  :    Message    and    accompanying    papers    referred    to    the    Committee 
on  Foreign  Affairs  and  ordered  to  be  printed.] 

To  the  House  of  Representatives: 

In  response  to  a  resolution  of  the  House  of  Representatives  of  No- 
vember 9,  1903.  requesting  the  President  "  to  communicate  to  the 
House  if  not,  in  his  judgment,  incompatible  with  the  interests  of  the 
public  service,  all  correspondence  and  other  official  documents  relat- 
ing to  the  recent  revolution  on  the  Isthmus  of  Panama,"  I  transmit 
herewith  copies  of  the  papers  called  for. 

Theodore  Roosevelt. 

"White  House,  Washington,  November  16,  1903. 


The  Presddent: 

The  Secretary  of  State,  to  whom  was  referred  a  copy  of  the  resolu- 
tion of  the  House  of  Representatives  of  November  9,  1903,  requesting 
copies  of  all  correspondence  and  other  official  documents  relating  to 
the  recent  revolution  on  the  Isthmus  of  Panama,  has  the  honor  to  lay 
before  the  President  copies  of  the  correspondence  from  and  to  the 
Department  of  State  on  the  subject. 

Respectfully   submitted. 

John  Hat. 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  November  IS,  1903. 


CORRESPONDENCE   BETWEEN   THE   DEPARTMENT    OF    STATE   AND 
THE  UNITED  STATES  CONSULATE  GENERAL  AT  PANAMA. 

A  press  bulletin  having  announced  an  outbreak  on  the  Isthmus,  the 
following  cablegram  was  sent  both  to  the  consulate  general  at  Panama 
and  the  consulate  at  Colon: 

Department  of  State, 
Washington,  November  3, 1903. 

(Sent  3.40  p.  m.) 
Uprising  on  Isthmus  reported.     Keep  department  promptly  and 
fully  informed. 

Loomis,  Acting. 

345 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

Mr.  Ehrman  to  Mr.  Hay. 

Panama,  November  3,  1903. 

(Received  8.15  p.  m.) 
No  uprising  yet.    Reported  will  be  iii  the  night.    Situation  is  critical. 

Ehrman. 


Mr.  Ehrman  to  Mr.  Hay. 

[Telegram.] 

Panama,  November  3,  1903. 

(Received  9.50  p.  m.) 
Uprising  occurred  to-night,  6 ;  no  bloodshed.  Army  and  navy  offi- 
cials taken  prisoners.  Government  will  be  organized  to-night,  con- 
sisting three  consuls,  also  cabinet.  Soldiers  changed.  Supposed  same 
movement  will  be  effected  in  Colon.  Order  prevails  so  far.  Situation 
serious.    Four  hundred  soldiers  landed  Colon  to-day  Barranquilla. 

Ehrman. 


Mr.  Loomis  to  Mr.  Ehrman. 

[Telegram.] 

Department  of  State, 
Washington,  November  3,  1903. 

(Sent  11.18  p.  m.) 
Message  sent  to  Nashville  to  Colon  may  not  have  been  delivered. 
Accordingly  see  that  following  message  is  sent  to  Nashville  immedi- 
ately : 

Nashville,  Colon: 

In  the  interests  of  peace  make  every  effort  to  prevent  Government  troops  at 
Colon  from  proceeding  to  Panama.  The  transit  of  the  Isthmus  must  be  kept 
open  and  order  maintained.    Acknowledge. 

(Signed)  Darling,  Acting.. 

Secure  special  train,  if  necessary.     Act  promptly. 

Loomis,  Acting. 


Mr.  Loomis  to  Mr.  Ehrman. 

[Telegram.] 

Department  of  State, 
Washington,  November  4, 1903: 

(Sent  12.02  p.  m.) 
Communicate  with  commander  of  gunboat  Bogota  and  state  plainly 
that  this  Government  being  responsible  for  maintaining  peace  and 
keeping  transit  open  across  Isthmus  desires  him  to  refrain  from  wan- 
tonly shelling  the  city.  We  shall  have  a  naval  force  at  Panama  in 
two  days,  and  are  now  ordering  men  from  the  Nashville  to  Panama  in 
the  interests  of  peace. 

Loomis,  Acting. 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  347 

Mr.  Ehrman  to  Mr.  Hay. 

[Telegram.] 

Panama,  November  If.,  1903. 

(Received  7.10  p.  m.) 
Mass  meeting  held.     Independence  publicly  declared.     Three  con- 
suls approved  organize  government,  composed  Federico  Boyd,  Jose 
Agustin  Arango,  Tomas  Arias.     Bogota  in  sight. 

Ehrman. 


Mr.  Ehrman  to  Mr.  Hay. 

[Telegram.] 

Panama,  November  4,  1903. 

(Received  9.50  a.  m.) 
Cables  Nashville  received.    Nash  ville  notified.    Troops  will  not  be 
moved.     Last  night  gunboat  Bogota  fired  several  shells  on  city ;  one 
Chinaman  killed.     Bogota  threatens  bombard  city  to-day. 

Ehrman. 


Mr.  Ehrman  to  Mr.  Hay. 

[Telegram.] 

Panama,  November  5, 1903. 

(Received  12.50  p.  m.) 
Received  an  official  circular  letter  from  the  committee  of  the  provi- 
sional government  saying  that  on  4th  political  move  occurred,  and  the 
Department  of  Panama  withdraws  from  the  Republic  of  the  United 
States  of  Colombia  and  formed  the  Republic  of  Panama. 
Requested  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  circular  letter. 

Ehrman. 


Mr.  Loomis  to  Mr.  Ehrman. 

[Telegram.] 

Department  of  State, 
Washington,  November  5,  1903. 

(Sent  3.15  p.  m.) 
Acknowledge  the  receipt  of  circular  letter  and  await  instructions 
before  taking  any  further  action  in  this  line. 

Loomis,  Acting. 

Mr.  Loomis  to  Mr.  Ehrman. 

[Telegram.] 

Department  of  State, 
Washington,  November  5,  1903. 

(Sent  5.0&  p.  m.) 
Keep  department  informed  as  to  situation. 

Loomts,  Acting. 


348  DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OP   THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

Mr.  Ehrman  to  Mr.  Hay. 

F  Telegram.] 

Panama,  November  5, 1903. 

(Eeceived  9.42  p.  m.) 
Colombian  troops  reembarked  per  Royal  Mail   for  Carthagena. 
Bogota  supposed  at  Buenaventura.    Quiet  prevails. 

Ehrman. 

^J    Mr.  Ehrman  to  Mr.  Hay. 

[Telegram.] 

Panama,  November  6,  1903. 

(Eeceived  11.55  a.  m.) 
The  situation  is  peaceful.  Isthmian  movement  has  obtained  so  far 
success.  Colon  and  interior  provinces  have  enthusiastically  joined 
independence.  Not  any  Colombian  soldiers  known  on  isthmian  soil 
at  present.  Padilla  equipped  to  pursue  Bogota.  Buneau  Varilla  has 
been  appointed  officially  confidential  agent  of  the  Republic  of 
Panama  at  Washington. 

Ehrman. 

Mr.  Hay  to  Mr.  Ehrman. 

(Telegram.] 

Department  or  State, 
Washington,  November  6, 1903. 

(Sent  12,51  p.  m.) 
The  people  of  Panama  have,  by  an  apparently  unanimous  move- 
ment, dissolved  their  political  connection  with  the  Republic  of  Co- 
lombia and  resumed  their  independence.  When  you  are  satisfied 
that  a  de  facto  government,  republican  in  form,  and  without  sub- 
stantial opposition  from  its  own  people,  has  been  established  in  the 
State  of  Panama,  you  will  enter  into  relations  with  it  as  the  re- 
sponsible government  of  the  territory  and  look  to  it  for  all  due  action 
to  protect  the  persons  and  property  of  citizens  of  the  United  States 
and  to  keep  open  the  isthmian  transit  in  accordance  with  the  obliga- 
tions of  existing  treaties  governing  the  relation  of  the  United  States 
to  that  territory. 

Communicate  above  to  Malmros,  who  will  be  governed  by  these 
instructions  in  entering  into  relations  with  the  local  authorities. 

Hay. 


Mr.  Hay  to  Mr.  Ehrman. 

\  Telegram.] 

Department  of  State, 
Washington,  November  6,  1903. 

(Sent  2.45  p.  m.) 
I  send,  for  your  information  and  guidance  in  the  execution  of  the 
instructions  cabled  to  you  to-day,  the  text  of  a  telegram  dispatched 
this  day  to  the  United  States  minister  at  Bogota : 

The  people  of  Panamn   having  by  an  apparently  unanimous  movement  dis- 
solved their  political  connection  with   the   Republic  of  Colombia   and  resumed 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OP    THE    PANAMA    CANAL.  349 

their  independence,  and  having  adopted  a  government  of  their  own,  republican 
in  form,  with  which  the  Government  of  the  United  States  of  America  has 
entered  into  relations,  the  President  of  the  United  States  in  accordance  with 
the  ties  of  friendship  which  have  so  long  and  so  happily  existed  between  the 
respective  nations,  must  earnestly  commends  to  the  Governments  of  Colombia 
and  of  Panama  the  peaceful  and  equitable  settlement  of  all  questions  at  issue 
between  them.  He  holds  that  he  is  bound,  not  merely  by  treaty  obligations, 
but  by  the  interests  of  civilization,  to  see  that  the  peaceable  traffic  of  the  world 
across  the  Isthmus  of  Panama  shall  not  longer  be  disturbed  by  a  constant  suc- 
cession of  unnecessary  and  wasteful  civil  wars. 

Hay. 


Mr.  Ehrman  to  Mr.  Hay. 

[Telegram.] 

Panama,  November  6, 1903. 

(Received  7.23  p,  m.) 
Filippe  Bunau  Varilla  has  been  appointed  envoy  extraordinary 
and  minister  plenipotentiary  to  the  United  States  of  America.     Per- 
fect quiet. 

Ehrman. 


Mr.  Ehrman  to  Mr.  Hay. 

[Telegram.] 

Panama,  November  8,  1903. 

(Received  11.23  p.  m.) 
It  is  reported  that  Colombian  authorities  have  detained  English 
steamers  Manavi  and  Quito  at  Buenaventura.     Supposed  to  be  to 
bring  troops  to  the  Isthmus. 

Ehrman\ 


Mr.  Ehrman  to  Mr.  Hay. 

[Telegram.] 

Panama,  November  7, 1903. 

(Received  12.20  p.  m.) 
I  have  communicated  to  Panama  Government  that  they  will  be  held 
responsible  for  the  protection  of  the  persons  and  property  of  citizens 
of  the  United  States,  as  well  as  to  keep  the  isthmian  transit  free  in 
accordance  with  obligations  of  existing  treaties  relative  to  the  isth- 
mian territory. 

Ehrman. 


Mr.  Ehrman  to  Mr.  Hay. 

[Telegram.] 

Panama,  November  10,  1903. 

(Received  1.35  p.  m.) 
Federico  Boyd,  a  member  of  the  Committee  of  the  Government, 
Amador  Guerrero,  both  delegates,  on  the   way  to  Washington   to 
arrange  in  satisfactory  manner  to  the  United  States  the  canal  treaty 


350  DIPLOMATIC    HISTOEY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL. 

and  other  matters.  Pablo  Arosemena,  attorney,  proceeds  next 
steamer.  English  steamers  were  not  held  at  Buenaventura.  Gun- 
boat Bogota  has  left  Buenaventura. 

Ehrman. 


Mr.  Loomis  to  Mr.  Ehrman. 

[Telegram.] 

Department  of  State, 
Washington,  November  10,  1903. 

(Sent  3.42  p.  m.) 
Keep  in  touch  with  commander  of  United  States  naval  forces  at 
Panama,  advising  him  concerning  news  bearing  on  military  situation. 

Loomis,  Acting. 

Mr.  Ehrman  to  Mr.  Hay. 

[Telegram.] 

Panama,  November  11,  1903. 

(Received  5.32  p.  m.) 
I  am  officially  informed  that  Bunau  Varilla  is  the  authorized  party 
to  make  treaties.    Boyd  and  Amador  have  other  missions  and  to  assist 
their  minister. 

Ehrman. 


CORRESPONDENCE   BETWEEN   THE   DEPARTMENT   OF    STATE   AND 
THE  UNITED  STATES  CONSULATE  AT  COLON. 

Mr.  Malmros  to  Mr.  Hay. 

[Telegram.] 

Colon,  November  3,  1903. 

(Received  2.35  p.  m.) 
Revolution  imminent.  Government  force  on  the  Isthmus  about  500 
men.  Their  official  promised  support  revolution.  Fire  department 
Panama,  441,  are  well  organized  and  favor  revolution.  Government 
vessel,  Cartagena,  with  about  400  men,  arrived  early  to-day  with  new 
commander  in  chief,  Tobar.  Was  not  expected  until  November  10. 
Tobar's  arrival  is  not  probable  to  stop  revolution. 

Malmros. 


Mr.  Loomis  to  Mr.  Malmros. 

[Telegram.] 

Department  of  State, 
Washington,  November  3,  1903. 

(Sent  4  p.  m.) 
Are  troops  from  the  vessel  Cartagena  disembarking  or  preparing 
to  land  ? 

Loomis. 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTOKY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  351 

Mr.  Loomis  to  Mr.  Malmros. 

[Telegram.] 

Department  of  State, 

Washington.  November  3,  1903. 

(Sent  4.28  p.  m.) 
Did  you  receive  and  deliver  to  Nashville  last  night  or  early  this 
morning  a  message? 

Loomis,  Acting.  ■ 

Mr.  Malmros  to  Mr.  Hay. 

[Telegram.] 

Colon.  November  3, 1903. 

(Received  8.20  p.  m.) 
Troops  from  vessel  Cartagena  have  disembarked  ;  are  encamping  on 
Pacific  dock  awaiting  orders  to  proceed  to  Panama  from  commander 
in  chief,  who  went  there  this  morning.     No  message  for  Nashville 
received. 

Malmros. 


Mr.  Loomis  to  Mr.  Malmros. 

[Telegram.] 

Department  of  State, 
Washington.  November  3,  1903. 

(Sent  8.45  p.  m.) 
The  troops  which  landed  from  the  Cartagena  should  not  proceed  to 
Panama. 

Loomis,  Acting. 

Mr.  Loomis  to  Mr.  Malmros. 

[Telegram.] 

Department  of  State, 
Washington.  November  3, 1903. 

(Sent  10.10  p.  m.) 
An  important  message  was  sent  at  6  Monday  night  in  your  care  for 
the  Nashville.     Make  all  possible  effort  to  get  it. 

Loomis. 


Mr.  Hay  to  Mr.  Malmros. 

[Telegram.] 

Department  of  State. 
Washington.  November  3, 1903. 

(Sent  10.30  p.m.) 
If  dispatch  to  Nashville  has  not  been  delivered  inform  her  captain 
immediately  that  she  must  prevent  Government  troops  departing  for 


352  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL. 

Panama  or  taking  any  action  which  would  lead  to  bloodshed,  and 
must  use  every  endeavor  to  preserve  order  on  Isthmus. 

Hay. 


Mr.  Malmros  to  Mr.  Hay. 

[Telegram.] 

Colon,  November  4,  1903. 

(Received  3.35  p.  m.) 
Met  captain  of  Nashville  at  6  p.  m.  yesterday.  Heard  that  mes- 
sage had  been  delivered  to  captain  boat  alongside  of  wharf  instead  of 
to  me.  No  rebels  or  invading  force  near  Panama  or  Colon  or  line  of 
transit.  Panama  intended  revolutionary  movement  known  here  to 
few  persons  only,  up  to  8  a.  m.  to-day.  Revolutionary  committee  of 
six  in  Panama  at  6  p.  m.  took  charge  of  revolutionary  movement. 
General  Tobar  and  five  officers  taken  prisoners.  Panama  in  pos- 
session of  committee  with  consent  of  entire  population.  This  fact 
appears  not  known  as  yet  to  conservatives  in  Colon.  Panama  com- 
mittee expect  to  have  1.500  men  armed  by  this  time.  State  of  affairs 
at  Panama  not  known  by  Colombian  force  at  Colon  as  yet.  Official 
in  command  of  disembarked  force  applied  for  transportation  this 
morning.  Captain  meanwhile  communicated  to  committee  about  10 
p.  m.  last  night  his  refusal  to  allow  train  with  force  to  be  sent  to 
Panama  and  the  committee  assented.  This  leaves  Colon  in  the  pos- 
session of  the  Government. 

Malmros. 


Mr.  Malmros  to  Mr.  Hay. 

[Telegram.] 

Colon,  November  <5,  1903. 

(Received  11.50  a.  m.) 
On  arrival  yesterday  morning's  train  Panama  revolution  and 
Tobar's  imprisonment  became  generally  known;  12.30  commander 
Colombian  troops  threatens  to  kill  every  American  unless  Tobar  re- 
leased by  2  p.  m.  Provisional  Government  informed  these  facts. 
Nashville  landed  50  men;  stationed  in  and  near  railroad  office  where 
Americans,  armed,  met.  Negotiations  Colombian  commander  and 
Panama  Government  commenced  and  progressing.  Hostilities  sus- 
pended.    Colombians  occupy  Colon  and  Monkey  Hill. 

Malmros. 


Mr.  Loomis  to  Mr.  Malmros. 

[Telegram.] 

Department  of  State, 
Washington,  November  <5, 1903. 

(Sent  5.10  p.  m.) 

What  is  the  situation  this  evening? 

Loomis,  Acting. 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL.  353 

Mr.  Malmros  to  Mr.  Hay. 

[Telegram.] 

Colon,  November  5, 190S. 

(Received  9.34  p.  m.) 
All  Colombian  soldiers  at  Colon  now,  7  p.  m.,  going  on  board  Royal 
Mail  steamer  returning  to  Cartagena.     Vessel,  supposed  to  be  Dixie, 
in  sight. 

Malmros. 


Mr.  Malmros  to  Mr.  Hay. 

[Telegram.] 

Colon,  November  6, 1903. 

(Received  4.50  p.  m.) 
Tranquillity  absolute  in  Colon.  Pcrfirio  Melendez  appointed  gov- 
ernor of  this  province.  Proclaimed  Republic  of  Panama  at  Colon 
prefectura  at  10  o'clock  a.  m.  English  and  French  consuls  present. 
I  arrived  after  proclamation,  and  upon  my  suggestion  I  told  governor 
that  presence  of  consuls  must  not  be  looked  upon  as  recognition  of 
revolutionary  state  by  their  respective  Governments.  Melendez  sent 
steam  launch  to  Bocas  del  Toro  to  proclaim  independence. 

Malmros. 


COMMUNICATIONS  FROM  THE  PANAMA   GOVERNMENT. 

[Telegram — Translation.] 

Panama,  November  4,  1903. 

(Received  8.45  p.  m.) 
Secretary  of  State,  Washington : 

We  take  the  liberty  of  bringing  to  the  knowledge  of  your  Govern- 
ment that  on  yesterday  afternoon,  in  consequence  of  a  popular  and 
spontaneous  movement  of  the  people  of  this  city,  the  independence  of 
the  Isthmus  was  proclaimed  and,  the  Republic  of  Panama  being  insti- 
tuted, its  provisional  government  organizes  an  (executive)  board  con- 
sisting of  ourselves,  who  are  assured  of  the  military  strength  neces- 
sary to  carry  out  our  determination. 

Jose  A.  Arango. 

Federico  Boyd. 

Tomas  Arias. 


[Telegram. — Translation.  ] 

Panama,  November  4,  1903. 

(Received  10.30  p.  m.) 

A.   Su  EXCELENCIA  PRESIDENTE  DE  LOS  EsTADOS  UnIDOS, 

Washington: 
The  municipality  of  Panama  is  now  (10  p.  m.)  holding  a  solemn 
session,  and  joins  in  the  movement  of  separation  of  the  Isthmus  of 

42112— S.  Doe.  474,  63-2 23 


354  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL. 

Panama  from  the  rest  of  Colombia.    It  hopes  for  the  recognition  of 
our  cause  by  your  Government. 

Demetro  S.  Brida. 

[  Telegram. — Translation.  ] 

Panama,  November  5,  1903. 

(Received  8.48  p.  m.) 
Secretary  of  State,  Washington: 

We  notify  you  that  we  have  appointed  Sefior  Philippe  Bunau- 
Varilla  confidential  agent  of  the  Republic  of  Panama  near  your 
Government  and  Dr.  Francisco  V.  de  la  Espriella  minister  of  foreign 
affairs. 

Arango. 

Boyd. 

Arias. 

rTelegram. — Translation.] 

Panama,  November  6, 1903. 

(Received  10.40  a.  m.) 
Secretary  of  State,  Washington: 

_  Colon  and  all  the  towns  of  the  Isthmus  have  adhered  to  the  declara- 
tion of  independence  proclaimed  in  this  city.  The  authority  of  the 
Republic  of  Panama  is  obeyed  throughout  its  territory. 

Arangc. 

Arias. 

Boyd. 

[Telegram. — Translation.] 

Panama,  November  6,  1903. 
Secretary  of  State,  Washington: 

The  board  of  provisional  government  of  the  Republic  of  Panama 
has  appointed  Sefior  Philippe  Bunau-Varilla  envoy  extraordinary 
and  minister  plenipotentiary  near  your  Government  with  full  powers 
to  conduct  diplomatic  and  financial  negotiations.  Deign  to  receive 
and  heed  him. 

J.  M.  Arango, 
Tomas  Arias, 
Federico   Boyd, 
Foreign  Relations. 

[Telegram. — Translation.] 

New  York,  November  7,  1903. 

(Received  1.40  p.  m.) 
His  Excellency  John  Hay,  Secretary  of  State: 

I  have  the  privilege  and  the  honor  of  notifying  you  that  the  Gov- 
ernment of  the  Republic  of  Panama  have  been  pleased  to  designate 
me  as  its  envoy  extraordinary  and  minister  plenipotentiary  near  the 
Government  of  the  United  States.    In  selecting  for  its  first  represen- 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA  CANAL.  355 

tative  at  Washington  a  veteran  servant  and  champion  of  the  Panama 
Canal,  my  Government  has  evidently  sought  to  show  that  it  considers 
a  loyal  and  earnest  devotion  to  the  success  of  that  most  heroic  con- 
ception of  human  genius  as  both  a  solemn  duty  and  the  essential  pur- 
pose of  its  existence.  I  congratulate  myself,  sir,  that  my  first  official 
duty  should  be  to  respectfully  request  you  to  convey  to  His  Ex- 
cellency the  President  of  the  United  States  on  behalf  of  the  people 
of  Panama  an  expression  of  the  grateful  sense  of  their  obligation  to 
his  Government.  In  extending  her  generous  hand  so  spontaneously 
to  her  latest  born,  the  Mother  of  the  American  Nations  is  prosecuting 
her  noble  mission  as  the  liberator  and  the  educator  of  the  peoples. 
In  spreading  her  protecting  wings  over  the  territory  of  our  Republic 
the  American  Eagle  has  sanctified  it.  It  has  rescued  it  from  the 
barbarism  of  unnecessary  and  wasteful  civil  wars  to  consecrate  it  to 
the  destiny  assigned  to  it  by  Providence,  the  service  of  humanity, 
and  the  progress  of  civilization. 

Philippe  Bunau  Varilla. 


CORRESPONDENCE   BETWEEN   THE   DEPARTMENT   OF    STATE    AND 
THE  UNITED  STATES  LEGATION  AT  BOGOTA. 

Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

f  Telegram.] 

Bogota,  November  4, 1903. 
(Received  November  6,  1903,  5  p.  m.) 
Fourth,  5  p.  m.  Confidential.  I  have  been  shown  telegram  from 
reliable  source  in  Panama  to  the  effect  that  Isthmus  is  preparing  for 
secession  and  that  proclamation  of  independence  may  be  expected 
soon.  The  particulars  carefully  guarded.  Reliable  information  hard 
to  obtain.  This  Government  is  evidently  alarmed  and  troops  are 
being  sent  to  Isthmus.  Repeat  telegrams  of  importance  from  United 
States  consul  general.     His  telegrams  to  me  may  be  interfered  with. 

Beaupre. 


Mr.  Hay  to  Mr.  Beaupre. 

[Telegram.] 

Department  or  State, 
Washington,  November  6,  1903. 
The  people  of  Panama  having  by  an  apparently  unanimous  move- 
ment dissolved  their  political  connection  with  the  Republic  of  Colom- 
bia and  resumed  their  independence,  and  having  adopted  a  govern- 
ment of  their  own — republican  in  form- — with  which  the  Government 
of  the  United  States  of  America  has  entered  into  relations,  the 
President  of  the  United  States,  in  accordance  with  the  ties  of  friend- 
ship which  have  so  long  and  so  happily  existed  between  the  re- 
spective nations,  most  earnestly  commends  to  the  Governments  of 
Colombia  and  of  Panama  the  peaceful  and  equitable  settlement  of  all 


356  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL. 

questions  at  issue  between  them.  He  holds  that  he  is  bound  not 
merely  by  treaty  obligations  but  by  the  interests  of  civilization,  to 
see  that  the  peaceful  traffic  of  the  world  across  the  Isthmus  of 
Panama  shall  not  longer  be  disturbed  by  a  constant  succession  of  un- 
necessary and  wasteful  civil  wars. 

Hay. 


Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

[Telegram.] 

Bogota,  November  6,  1903. 
(Received  November  8 — 11.05  p.  m.) 
November  6,  6  p.  m.     Knowing  that  the  revolution  has  already 

commenced  in  Panama, says  that  if  the  Government 

of  the  United  States  will  land  troops  to  preserve  Colombian  sover- 
eignty, and  the  transit,  if  requested  by  the  Colombian  charge 
d'affaires,  this  Government  will  declare  martial  law,  and  by  virtue 
of  vested  constitutional  authority,  when  public  order  is  disturbed, 
will  approve  by  decree  the  ratification  of  the  canal  treaty  as  signed ; 
or,  if  the  Government  of  the  United  States  prefers,  will  call  extra 
session  of  Congress  with  new  and  friendly  members  next  May  to 
approve  the  treaty.  General  Reyes  has  the  perfect  confidence  of 
Vice  President,  he  says,  and  if  it  becomes  necessary  will  go  to  the 
Isthmus  or  send  representatives  there  to  adjust  matters  along  above 
lines  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  people  there.  If  he  goes  he  would 
like  to  act  in  harmony  with  the  commander  of  the  United  States 
forces.  This  is  the  personal  opinion  of  Reyes,  and  he  will  advise 
this  Government  to  act  accordingly.  There  is  a  great  reaction  of 
public  opinion  in  favor  of  the  treaty,  and  it  is  considered  certain 
that  the  treaty  was  not  legally  rejected  by  Congress.  To-morrow 
martial  law  will  be  declared;  1,000  troops  will  be  sent  from  the 
Pacific  side;  about  the  same  number  from  the  Atlantic  side.  Please 
answer  by  telegraph.  / 

Beaupre. 


Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

[Telegram.] 

Bogota,  November  7,  1903. 
(Received  November  10 — 7.30  p.  m.) 
November  7,  2  p.  m.  General  Reyes  leaves  next  Monday  for  Pan- 
ama, invested  with  full  powers.  He  has  telegraphed  chiefs  of  the 
insurrection  that  his  mission  is  to  the  interests  of  Isthmus.  He 
wishes  answer  from  you,  before  leaving,  to  the  inquiry  in  my  tele- 
gram of  yesterday,  and  wishes  to  know  if  the  American  commander 
will  be  ordered  to  cooperate  with  him  and  with  new  Panama  Gov- 
ernment to  arrange  peace  and  the  approval  of  canal  treaty,  which 
will  be  accepted  on  condition  that  the  integrity  of  Colombia  be  pre- 
served. He  has  telegraphed  President  of  Mexico  to  ask  the  Gov- 
ernment of  the  United  States  and  all  the  countries  represented  at 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTOKY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL.  357 

the  Pan-American  conference  to  aid  Colombia  to  preserve  her  integ- 
rity. The  question  of  the  approval  of  the  treaty  mentioned  in  my 
telegram  of  yesterday  will  be  arranged  in  Panama.  He  asks  that 
before  taking  definite  action  you  will  await  his  arrival  there,  and 
that  the  Government  of  the  United  States  in  the  meantime  preserve 
the  neutrality  and  transit  of  the  Isthmus  and  do  not  recognize  the 
new  Government.  Great  excitement  here.  Martial  law  has  been 
declared  in  the  Cauca  and  Panama.     Answer. 

Beaupre. 


Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

[Telegram.] 

Bogota,  November  7,  1903. 
(Received  November  10,  7.55  p.  m.) 
November  7,  6  p.  m.  As  the  Government  of  the  United  States  has 
war  vessels  at  Panama  and  Colon,  minister  for  foreign  affairs  has 
requested  me  to  ask,  Will  you  allow  Colombian  Government  to  land 
troops  at  those  ports  to  fight  there  and  on  the  line  of  railway?  Also 
if  the  Government  of  the  United  States  will  take  action  to  maintain 
Colombian  right  and  sovereignty  on  the  Isthmus  in  accordance  with 
article  35,  the  treaty  of  1846,  in  case  the  Colombian  Government  is 
entirely  unable  to  suppress  the  secession  movement  there  ? 

I  am  entirely  unable  to  elicit  from  minister  for  foreign  affairs  con- 
firmation of  the  promises  made  by ■ . 

Beaupre. 


Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

[Telegram.] 

Bogota.  November  9,  1903. 
(Received  November  11,  12.30  a.  m.) 

November  9,  9  a.  m.  I  am  desired  to  inform  you  by  General  Reyes 
that  Gen.  Bedronel  Ospina  and  Lucas  Cabellero,  prominent  party 
ieaders,  accompany  him  on  his  mission. 

Very  great  excitement  here.  Large  crowds  paraded  streets  yester- 
day, crying  "Down  with  Marroquin.""  Mas-  meeting  denounced 
him ;  called  for  a  change  of  government.  Hundreds  gathered  at  the 
palace,  and  their  orator,  a  prominent  national  general,  addressed  the 
President,  calling  for  his  resignation.  Troops  dispersed  gathering, 
wounding  several.  Martial  law  is  declared  here,  and  the  city  is  be- 
ing guarded  by  soldiers.  Legation  of  the  United  States  under  strong 
guard,  but  apparently  no  indications  of  hostile  demonstration. 

The  residence  of  Lorenzo  Marroquin  attacked  with  stones. 

Referring  to  the  questions  presented  by  minister  for  foreign  affairs 
in  my  telegram  of  7th,  I  have  preserved  silence,  but  bear  in  mind 
page  578,  Foreign  Relations,  part  3.  1866,  and  instructions  134  to 
minister  to  the  United  States  of  Colombia.  1865. 

Beaupre. 


358  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

Mr.  Hay  to  Mr.  Beaupre. 

[Telegram.] 

Department  of  State, 
Washington,  November  11,  1903. 

(Sent  12.12  p.  m.) 
Earnestly  desiring  an  amicable  solution  of  matters  at  issue  between 
Colombia  and  Panama,  we  have  instructed  our  consul  general  at 
Panama  to  use  good  offices  to  secure  for  General  Reyes  a  courteous 
reception  and  considerate  hearing.  It  is  not  thought  desirable  to  per- 
mit landing  of  Colombian  troops  on  Isthmus,  as  such  a  course  would 
precipitate  civil  war  and  disturb  for  an  indefinite  period  the  free 
transit  which  we  are  pledged  to  protect.  I  telegraphed  you  on  No- 
vember G  that  we  had  entered  into  relations  with  the  provisional 
government. 

Hay. 


CORRESPONDENCE    BETWEEN    THE    SECRETARY    OF    STATE    AND 
THE  CHARGE  D'AFFAIRES  OF  COLOMBIA. 

Mr.  Hay  to  Doctor  TIerran. 

Department  of  State, 
Washington,  November  6,  1903. 
Dear  Doctor  Herrax  :  I  inclose  copy  of  a  dispatch  which  has  to- 
day been  sent  to  our  minister  at  Bogota. 

Very  sincerely,  yours,  John  Hay. 


[Inclosure.] 

Mr.  Hay  to  Mr.  Beaupre. 

[Telegram.] 

November  6,  1903. 
Beaupre,  Bogota: 

The  people  of  Panama  having  by  an  apparently  unanimous  move- 
ment dissolved  their  political  connection  with  the  "Republic  of  Colom- 
bia and  resumed  their  independence,  and  having  adopted  a  govern- 
ment of  their  own,  republican  in  form,  with  which  the  Government 
of  the  United  States  of  America  has  entered  into  relations,  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States,  in  accordance  with  the  ties  of  friendship 
which  have  so  long  and  so  happily  existed  between  the  respective 
nations,  most  earnestly  commends  to  the  Governments  of  Colombia 
and  Panama  the  peacefid  and  equitable  settlement  of  all  questions 
at  issue  between  them.  He  holds  that  he  is  bound  not  merely  by 
treaty  obligations,  but  by  the  interests  of  civilization,  to  see  that  the 
peaceable  traffic  of  the  world  across  the  Isthmus  of  Panama  shall  not 
longer  be  disturbed  by  a  constant  succession  of  unnecessary  and 
wasteful  civil  wars. 

Hay. 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  359 

Dr.  Herran  to  Mr.  Hay. 

[Translation.] 

Legation  of  Colombia, 
Washington,  D.  C,  November  7, 1903. 

Excellency:  I  acknowledge  the  reception  of  your  excellency's 
note  of  the  6th  instant,  inclosing  a  copy  of  the  telegram  sent  on  the 
same  day  to  the  legation  of  the  United  States  at  Bogota  by  the  De- 
partment of  State. 

In  that  telegram  your  excellency  refers  to  the  relations  already 
entered  into  by  the  Government  of  the  United  States  of  America 
with  the  Colombian  rebels  who  on  the  evening  of  the  3d  usurped  the 
power  in  the  capital  of  the  Colombian  Department  of  Panama  and 
imprisoned  the  lawful  civil  and  military  authorities. 

Your  excellency  will  undoubtedly  receive  the  reply  of  the  Colom- 
mian  Government  through  the  same  channel  that  was  used  to  forward 
the  notice  of  which  your  excellency  was  pleased  to  send  me  a  copy, 
but,  in  the  meanwhile,  I  am  discharging  a  duty  by  lodging  in  advance 
with  your  excellency,  in  the  name  of  my  Government,  a  solemn  pro- 
test against  the  attitude  assumed  in  the  Department  of  Panama  by 
the  Government  of  the  United  States  to  the  injury  of  Colombia's 
rights  and  in  disaccord  with  the  stipulations  of  article  35  of  the  still 
existing  treaty  of  1846-1848  between  Colombia  and  the  United  States 
of  America. 

I  reiterate,  etc., 

Tomas  Herran. 


Mr.  Hay  to  Dr.  Tier  ran. 

No.  22.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  November  11,  1903. 
Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  note  of 
the  7th  instant,  in  which,  acknowledging  my  communication  of  the 
6th  instant,  you  are  pleased,  of  your  own  motion  and  in  the  absence 
of  instructions  from  your  Government,  to  lodge  a  protest  against 
the  attitude  assumed  by  the  Government  of  the  United  States  in 
respect  to  the  situation  on  the  Isthmus  of  Panama. 
Accept,  sir,  etc., 

John  Hay. 


Mr.  Tower  to  Mr.  Hay. 

[Telegram.] 

Embassy  of  the  United  States, 

Berlin,  November  10,  1903. 

(Received  5.40  p.  m.) 
In  regard  to  the  report  telegraphed  from  New  York  that  the  Colom- 
bian consul  general  there  had  declared  that  Colombian  citizens  had 
petitioned  the  Colombian  Government  to  send  a  deputation  to  thank 
the  German  Government  for  its  offered  protection  and  to  make  con- 
cessions of  land  to  Germany  therefor,  I  have  just  received  the  assur- 


360  DIPLOMATIC   HISTOKY    OF    THE   PANAMA  CANAL. 

ance  of  the  German  minister  for  foreign  affairs  that  there  is  no  truth 
whatever  in  this  report.  He  added  that  Germany  has  no  interest  in 
the  Panama  matter,  and  that  the  question  of  an 'interference  on  the 
part  of  Germany  does  not  exist. 

Tower. 

Mr.  Porter  to  Mr.  Hay. 

[Telegram.] 
E  MR  ASSY   OF   THE   UNITED    STATES, 

Paris,  November  11,  1903. 

(Received  3.50  p.  m.) 
The  French  generally  are  much  pleased  with  events  in  Panama  and 
our  attitude  there.  In  conYersation  with  minister  for  foreign  affairs 
he  expressed  himself  in  Yery  sympathetic  manner.  Has  authorized 
French  consul  at  Panama  to  enter  into  relations  with  cle  facto  govern- 
ment. Recognition  will  no  doubt  follow  in  time,  and  it  seems  to  be 
disposition  of  European  powers  to  await  formal  recognition  by  the 
United  States  before  acting. 

Porter. 

RECEPTION   OF   MINISTER   OF   PANAMA. 

Mr.  Varilla  to  Mr.  Hay. 

[Translation.] 

Legation  of  the  Republic  of  Panama, 

Washington,  November  11,  1903. 
Mr.  Secretary  of  State  : 

I  have  the  very,  great  honor  to  bring  to  your  knowledge  the  fact 
that  the  Republic  of  Panama  has  designated  me  to  fill,  near  the  Gov- 
ernment of  the  United  States  of  America,  the  post  of  envoy  extraor- 
dinary and  minister  plenipotentiary,  with  full  powers  to  negotiate. 

While  begging  you,  Mr.  Secretary  of  State,  to  transmit  to  His 
Excellency  the  President  of  the  Republic  of  the  United  States  the 
substance  of  the  present  communication,  I  venture  to  ask  you  to 
solicit  from  his  kindness  the  appointment  of  a  date  on  which  he  will 
authorize  me  to  present  to  him  my  letters  of  credence. 
I  have,  etc., 

P.  Bunau  Varilla. 


Mr.  Loomis  to  Mr.  Varilla. 

No.  1.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  November  12,  1903. 
Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  note  of 
the  11th  instant,  in  which  you  advise  me  that  the  Republic  of  Panama 
has  appointed  you  to  fill,  near  this  Government,  the  post  of  envoy 
extraordinary  and  minister  plenipotentiary,  with  full  powers  to 
negotiate. 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTOBY    OF   THE   PANAMA  CANAL.  361 

You  further  ask  that  this  information  may  be  communicated  to  the 
President  and  that  he  will  kindly  fix  a  date  at  which  you  may  present 
your  letters  of  credence. 

In  reply  I  have  the  honor  to  say  that  the  President  will  be  pleased 
to  receive  you  for  the  purpose  mentioned  to-morrow,  Friday,  at  9.30 
a.  m. 

If  you  will  be  good  enough  to  call  at  this  department  shortly  before 
the  hour  mentioned,  the  Secretary  of  State  will  be  pleased  to  accom- 
pany you  to  the  White  House. 

Accept,  etc.,  Francis  B.  Loomis, 

Acting  Secretary. 


REMARKS  MADE  BY  THE  MINISTER  OF  PANAMA. 

Mr.  President  :In  according  to  the  minister  plenipotentiary  of  the 
Republic  of  Panama  the  honor  of  presenting  to  you  his  letters  of 
credence  you  admit  into  the  family  of  nations  the  weakest  and  the 
last  born  of  the  republics  of  the  New  World. 

It  owes  its  existence  to  the  outburst  of  the  indignant  grief  which 
stirred  the  hearts  of  the  citizens  of  the  Isthmus  on  beholding  the 
despotic  action  which  sought  to  forbid  their  country  from  fulfilling 
the  destinies  vouchsafed  to  it  by  Providence. 

In  consecrating  its  right  to  exist,  Mr.  President,  you  put  an  end  to 
what  appeared  to  be  the  interminable  controversy  as  to  the  rival 
waterways,  and  you  definitely  inaugurate  the  era  of  the  achievement 
of  the  Panama  Canal. 

From  this  time  forth  the  determination  of  the  fate  of  the  canal 
depends  upon  two  elements  alone,  now  brought  face  to  face,  singu- 
larly unlike  as  regards  their  authority  and  power,  but  wholly  equal 
in  their  common  and  ardent  desire  to  see  at  last  the  accomplishment 
of  the  heroic  enterprise  for  piercing  the  mountain  barrier  of  the 
Andes. 

The  highway  from  Europe  to  Asia,  following  the  pathway  of  the 
sun,  is  now  to  be  realized. 

The  early  attempts  to  find  such  a  way  unexpectedly  resulted  in  the 
greatest  of  all  historic  achievements,  the  discovery  of  America.  Cen- 
turies have  since  rolled  by,  but  the  pathway  sought  has  hitherto 
remained  in  the  realm  of  dreams.  To-day,  Mr.  President,  in  response 
to  your  summons,  it  becomes  a  reality. 

THE    PRESIDENT'S   REPLY   THE   REMABKS    MADE   BY    SENOR   BUNAU   VARILLA 
ON  THE  OCCASION  OF  THE  PRESENTATION  OF  HIS  LETTERS  OF  CREDENCE. 

Mr.  Minister:  I  am  much  gratified  to  receive  the  letters  whereby 
you  are  accredited  to  the  Government  of  the  United  States  in  the 
capacity  of  envoy  extraordinary  and  minister  plenipotentiary  of  the 
Republic  of  Panama. 

In  accordance  with  its  long-established  rule,  this  Government  has 
taken  cognizance  of  the  act  of  the  ancient  territory  of  Panama  in  reas- 
serting the  right  of  self-control  and,  seeing  in  the  recent  events  on  the 
Isthmus  an  unopposed  expression  of  the  will  of  the  people  of  Panama 
and  the  confirmation  of  their  declared  independence  by  the  institution 


362  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL. 

of  a  de  facto  government,  republican  in  form  and  spirit,  and  alike  able 
and  resolved  to  discharge  the  obligations  pertaining  to  sovereignty,  we 
have  entered  into  relations  with  the  new  Republic.  It  is  fitting  that 
we  should  do  so  now,  as  we  did  nearly  a  century  ago  when  the  Latin 
peoples  of  America  proclaimed  the  right  of  popular  government,  and 
it  is  equally  fitting  that  the  United  States  should,  now  as  then,  be  the 
first  to  stretch  out  the  hand  of  fellowship  and  to  observe  toward  the 
new-born  State  the  rules  of  equal  intercourse  that  regulate  the  rela- 
tions of  sovereignties  toward  one  another. 

I  feel  that  I  express  the  wish  of  my  countrymen  in  assuring  you, 
and  through  you  the  people  of  the  Republic  of  Panama,  of  our  earnest 
hope  and  desire  that  stability  and  prosperity  shall  attend  the  new 
State,  and  that,  in  harmony  with  the  United  States,  it  may  be  the  prov- 
idential instrument  of  untold  benefit  to  the  civilized  world  through 
the  opening  of  a  highway  of  universal  commerce  across  its  exception- 
ally favored  territory. 

For  yourself,  Mr.  Minister,  I  wish  success  in  the  discharge  of  the 
important  mission  to  which  you  have  been  called. 


Navy  Department. 
Washington,  November  12,  190S. 
Sir:  In  accordance  with  the  resolution  of  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives of  the  9th  instant,  calling  for  all  correspondence  and  other 
official  documents  relating  to  the  recent  revolution  on  the  Isthmus  of 
Panama,  I  have  the  honor  to  transmit  herewith  all  such  matter  on  file 
in  the  Navy  Department. 
Very  respectfully, 

William  H.  Moody, 

Secretary. 
The  President. 


/ 


Navy  Department, 
Washington,  D.  C  November  2.  1903. 

[Translation.  J 

Nashville,  care  American  Consul.  Colon? 

Maintain  free  and  uninterrupted  transit.  If  interruption  threat- 
ened by  armed  force,  occupy  the  line  of  railroad.  Prevent  landing 
of  any  armed  force  with  hostile  intent,  either  Government  or  insur- 
gent, either  at  Colon,  Porto  Bello,  or  other  point.  Send  copy  of  in- 
structions to  the  senior  officer  present  at  Panama  upon  arrival  of 
Boston.  Have  sent  copy  of  instructions  and  have  telegraphed  Dixie 
to  proceed  with  all  possible  dispatch  from  Kingston  to  Colon.  Gov- 
ernment force  reported  approaching  the  Isthmus  in  vessels.  Prevent 
their  landing  if  in  your  judgment  this  would  precipitate  a  conflict. 
Acknowledgment  is  required. 

Darling,  Acting. 

1  Same  order  to  commander  of  Dixie,  at  Kingston,  Jamaica. 


diplomatic  history  of  the  panama  canal.  363 

Navy  Department, 
Washington,  D,  C,  November  2,  1903. 
Glass,  Marblehead,  Acapulco:1 

Proceed  with  all  possible  dispatch  to  Panama.  Telegraph  in  cipher 
your  departure.  Maintain  free  and  uninterrupted  transit.  If  inter- 
ruption is  threatened  by  armed  force  occupy  the  line  of  railroad. 
Prevent  landing  of  any  armed  force,  either  Government  or  insurgent, 
with  hostile  intent  at  any  point  within  50  miles  of  Panama.  If 
doubtful  as  to  the  intention  of  any  armed  force,  occupy  Ancon  Hill 
strongly  with  artiller}'.  If  the  Wyoming  would  delay  Concord  and 
Marblehead  her  disposition  must  be  left  to  your  discretion.  Gov- 
ernment force  reported  approaching  the  Isthmus  in  vessels.  Pre- 
vent their  landing  if  in  your  judgment  landing  would  precipitate  a 
conflict. 

Darling,  Acting. 


Navy  Department, 
Washington,  D.  C.  November  3,  1903. 
Cruiser  Atlanta,  Kingston,  Jamaica: 

Proceed  with  all  possible  dispatch  to  Colon.     Acknowledge  imme- 
diately.    When  will  you   sail? 

Darling,  Acting. 


Xavy  Department, 

Washington,  D.  € .,  November  3,  1903. 
Nashville,  Colon: 

In  the  interest  of  peace  make  every  effort  to  prevent  Government 
troops  at  Colon  from  proceeding  to  Panama.  The  transit  of  the 
Isthmus  must  be  kept  open  and  order  maintained.     Acknowledge. 

Darling,  Acting. 


Navy  Department, 

Washington.  D.  C,  November  3, 1903. 
American  Consul.  Panama: 

Message  sent  Nashville  to  Colon  may  not  have  been  delivered. 
Accordingly  see  that  the  following  message  is  sent  to  Nashville 
immediately: 

Nashville,  Colon : 

In  the  interest  of  peace  make  every  effort  to  prevent  Government  troops  at 
Colon  from  proceeding  to  Panama.  The  transit  of  the  Isthmus  must  be  kept 
open  and  order  maintained.     Acknowledge. 

Dabling,    Voting. 

Secure  special  train  if  necessary.     Act  promptly. 

Loomis,  Acting. 

1  Same  to  commander  of  Boston  at  San  Juan  del  Sur,  Nicaragua. 


364  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL. 

[Translation.] 

Navy  Department, 

Washington,  D.  C,  November  4,  1903. 
Nashville,  Colon: 

Gunboat  of  Colombia  shelling  Panama.  Send  immediately  battery 
3-inch  field  gun  and  G-pounder  with  a  force  of  men  to  Panama  to  com- 
pel cessation  bombardment.  Eailroad  must  furnish  transportation 
immediately. 

Darling.  Acting. 

[Translation.] 

Washington,  D.  C.,  November  5, 1903. 
Boston,  care  of  American  consul,  Panama: 

Prevent  recurrence  bombardment  of  Panama.     Acknowledge. 

Moody. 


Navy  Department, 

Washington,  D.  c7.,  November  5,  1903. 
Nashville,  Colon: 

Prevent  any  armed  force  of  either  side  from  landing  at  Colon,  Porto 
Bello,  or  vicinity. 

Moody. 


I  Translation.] 


Washington,  D.  C,  November  6,  1903. 
Maine,  Woods  Hole,  Mass.: 

Proceed  at  once  to  Colon,  coaling  wherever  necessary  to  expedite 
your  arrival.     Acknowledge. 

Moody. 


[Translation.] 

Washington,  D.  C.,  November  9, 1903. 
Diehl,  Boston: 

Upon  the  arrival  of  the  Marble  head  sufficient  force  must  be  sent  to 
watch  movements  closely  of  the  British  steamers  seized  at  Buenaven- 
tura and  to  prevent  the  landing  of  men  with  hostile  intent  within 
limits  of  the  State  of  Panama.  Protect  the  British  steamers  if 
necessary. 

Moody. 


[Translation.] 


Washington.  D.  C.  November  10,  1903. 
(Ii.ass.  Marblehcad.  Panama: 

Reported   that   the  British   steamers   at   Buenaventura   were  not 
detained.    Did  they  leave  with  Colombian  troops  aboard  ? 

Moody. 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  365 

[Translation.] 

Colon,  October  15,  1903. 
Secnav,  Washington,  D.  C: 

Report  is  current  to  the  effect  that  a  revolution  has  broken  out  in 
the  State  of  Cauca.  Everything  is  quiet  on  the  Isthmus  unless  a 
change  takes  place.  On  this  account  there  is  no  necessity  to  remain 
here.    Do  not  think  it  necessary  to  visit  St.  Andrews  Island. 

Hubbard, 
Commanding  Officer  U.  S.  S.  Nashville. 


[Translation.] 

Colon,  November  3,  1903. 
Secnav,  Washington,  D.  C: 

Receipt  of  your  telegram  of  November  2  is  acknowledged.  Prior 
to  receipt  this  morning  about  400  men  were  landed  here  by  the  Gov- 
ernment of  Colombia  from  Cartagena.  No  revolution  has  been  de- 
clared on  the  Isthmus  and  no  disturbances.  Railway  company  have 
declined  to  transport  these  troops  except  by  request  of  the  governor 
of  Panama.  Request  has  not  been  made.  It  is  possible  that  move- 
ment may  be  made  to-night  at  Panama  to  declare  independence,  in 
which  event  I  will  *  *  *  (message  mutilated  here)  here.  Situ- 
ation is  most  critical  if  revolutionary  leaders  act. 

Hubbard. 


[Translation.] 

Colon,  November  4,  1903. 
Secnav,  Washington: 

Provisional  government  was  established  at  Panama  Tuesday  eve- 
ning; no  organized  opposition.  Governor  of  Panama,  General 
Tobar,  General  Amaya,  Colonel  Morales,  and  three  others  of  the 
Colombian  Government  troops  who  arrived  Tuesday  morning  taken 
prisoner  at  Panama.  I  have  prohibited  transit  of  troops  now  here 
across  the  Isthmus. 

Hubbard. 

Colon  November  4,  1903. 
Secretary  of  the  Navy,  Washington,  D.  C: 

Government  troops  yet  in  Colon.  Have  prohibited  transportation 
of  troops  either  direction.  No  interruption  of  transit  as  yet.  Will 
make  every  effort  to  preserve  peace  and  order. 

Hubbard. 

Colon,  November  4, 1903. 
Secnav,  Washington,  D.  C: 

I  have  landed  force  to  protect  the  lives  and  property  of  American 
citizens  here  against  threats  Colombian  soldiery.  I  am  protecting 
water  front  with  ship.  I  can  not  possibly  send  to  Panama  until 
affairs  are  settled  at  Colon. 

Hubbard. 


366  DIPLOMATIC    HISTOEY    OF   THE   PANAMA    CANAL. 

Acapulco,  Mexico.  November  If,  1903. 
Secretary  Navy,  Washmgton^  D.  C: 

Marblehead  and  Concord  to  Panama  to-day  4  p.  m. ;  Wyoming  will 
follow  to-morrow  afternoon.  If  Boston  is  to  go  with  squadron,  I 
would  suggest  Department  will  order  her  to  rendezvous  off  Cape 
Mala,  Colombia,  about  6  p.  m.,  on  November  9.  I  have  ordered  Nero 
to  Acapulco.  I  will  leave  sealed  orders  for  her  to  proceed  without 
delay  to  Panama  unless  otherwise  directed. 

Glass. 


Colon,  November  5,  1903 — 941  a.  m. 
Secnav,  Washington.  D.  C: 

British  man-of-war  Amphion  is  protecting  American  interests  at 
Panama.     Reported  bombardment  much  exaggerated. 

Hubbard. 


Colon,  November  5.  1903 — 9.1^5  a.  m. 
Secnav,  Washington.  D.  <  .: 

Have  withdrawn  force  landed  Wednesday  afternoon.     No  blood- 
shed.   I  do  not  apprehend  difficulty  of  any  serious  nature. 

Hubbard. 


Colon,  November  5, 1903. 

Secretary  of  the  Navy. 

Washington,  D.  C: 
Situation  here  this  morning  again  acute.     Have  deemed  advisable 

to  reland  force. 

Hubbard. 


[Translation.] 

Colon,  November  5. 

Secnav,  Washington  : 

Atlas  Line's  steamer,  with  large  body  of  troops,  reported  sailing 

from  Cartagena,  Colombia. 

Hubbard. 


Navy  Department, 
Washington,  D.  C,  Colon,  November  6, 1903. 

Secretary  of  the  Navy, 

Washington,  D.  C: 
All  quiet.     Independents  declare  Government  established  as  Re- 
public of  Panama.     Have  withdrawn  marines. 
1  Delano. 


Colon,  November  6, 1903—9.15  a.  m. 
Secnav,  Washington: 

Vrrived  Thursday  evening;  landed  force.     Following  conditions 
prevailing:  Just  before  landing  all  the  troops  of  Colombia  have  left 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  367 

for  R.  M.  S.  P.  Company's  steamer  Orinoco  for  Cartagena.  Inde- 
pendent party  in  possession  of  Colon,  Panama,  and  railroad  line. 
Nashville  withdrawn  force. 

Delano. 


[Translation.] 

Panama,  November  7, 1903 — 740  p.  m. 
Secnav,  Washington: 

All  quiet ;  traffic  undisturbed ;  message  to  prevent  received. 

Diehl. 


Colon,  November  8, 1903 — 7.05  p.  m. 
Secnav,  Washington,  D.  C: 
Atlanta  left  yesterday  for  Bocas  del  Toro. 

Delano. 


Panama,  November  9. 
Secretary  of  the  Navy, 

Washington: 

The  British  consul  and  the  minister  of  war  of  the  provisional  gov- 
ernment fear  seizure  of  two  British  steamers  at  Buenaventura  to 
transport  troops  convoyed  by  gunboat.  Prevailed  upon  minister  to 
dispatch  gunboat,  fearing  possible  destruction  British  steamers.  The 
landing  of  troops  in  the  territory  within  the  limit  under  my  control 
will  cause  prolonged  campaign.  Instructions  from  the  Department 
are  requested. 

Diehl. 


Panama,  November  10,  1903. 
Secnav  : 

Your  telegram  of  the  9th  of  November  to  the  Boston  acknowledged. 
No  interference  British  vessels  yet.  Report  seems  to  be  well  founded 
that  the  steamship  Bogota  sailed  from  Buenaventura  yesterday  after- 
noon with  1,000  for  Rio  Dulce.  Have  sent  Concord  to  patrol  in  that 
vicinity  in  order  to  prevent  landing.    Everything  is  quiet  at  Panama. 

Glass. 


No.  12. 

PRESIDENT'S   SECOND   MESSAGE   GIVING   CORRESPONDENCE    ON 
REVOLUTION  ON  THE  ISTHMUS  OF  PANAMA. 

[House  Document   No.   8,  part  2,   Fifty-eighth   Congress,   first  session.] 
REVOLUTION  ON  THE  ISTHMUS  OF  PANAMA. 

3IESSAGE  FROM  THE  PRESIDENT  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES,  TRANSMITTING 
ADDITIONAL  CORRESPONDENCE  RELATING  TO  THE  RECENT  REVOLUTION 
ON  THE  ISTHMUS  OF  PANAMA. 

[November  27,    1903:   Read;  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Affairs  and  ordered 

to  be  printed.] 

To  the  House  of  Representatives : 

In  response  to  a  resolution  of  the  House  of  Representatives  of 
November  9,  1903,  requesting  the  President  "to  communicate  to  the 
House,  if  not,  in  his  judgment,  incompatible  with  the  interests  of  the 
public  service,  all  correspondence  and  other  official  documents  relating 
to  the  recent  revolution  on  the  Isthmus  of  Panama,"  I  transmit  here- 
with copies  of  additional  papers  on  the  subject  which  have  been 
received  subsequent  to  the  resolution  referred  to. 

Theodore  Eoosevelt. 

White  House, 

Washington.  November  27,  1903. 


The  President: 

The  Secretary  of  State,  to  whom  was  referred  a  copy  of  the  resolu- 
tion of  the  House  of  Representatives  of  November  9,  1903,  requesting 
copies  of  all  correspondence  and  other  official  documents  relating  to 
the  recent  revolution  on  the  Isthmus  of  Panama,  has  the  honor  to  lay 
before  the  President  copies  of  additional  correspondence  on  the  sub- 
ject received  subsequent  to  the  resolution  referred  to. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

John  Hay. 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  November  2^,  1903. 


No.  464.]  Consulate  General  of  the  United  States, 

Panama,  November  9,  1903. 
Hon.  Francis  B.  Loomis, 

Assistant  Secretainj  of  State,  Washington,  D.  C. 
Sir  :  I  have  the  honor  to  say  that  on  the  5th  instant  I  received  from 
the  Committee  of  the  Provisional  Government  a  circular  letter 
(No.  1),  dated  November  4,  1903,  informing  me  that  Panama  had 
dissolved  its  political  relations  with  the  Republic  of  Colombia  and 
requesting  me  to  acknowledge  receipt  of  circular.     Inclosed  please 

368 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA   CANAL.  369 

find  translation  of  circular  letter,  marked  "  A."  I  immediately  cabled 
the  department  the  contents  of  said  circular  letter,  and  upon  receipt 
of  the  department's  cable  instructing  me  to  acknowledge  receipt  of 
circular  and  await  instructions,  I  wrote  acknowledging  same.  Please 
find  copy  of  my  letter,  marked  "  B." 

On  receipt  of  the  two  telegrams  from  the  department  in  regard  to 
entering  into  relations  with  the  local  authorities  here,  being  satisfied 
that  there  was  a  de  facto  government  established,  and  as  there  was  no 
opposition  to  same  in  the  State  of  Panama,  I  wrote  on  the  morning  of 
the  7th  to  the  committee,  informing  them  that  they  would  be  held 
responsible  for  the  protection  of  the  persons  and  property  of  Ameri- 
can citizens,  as  well  as  responsible  for  carrying  out  treaty  obligations, 
in  accordance  with  treaties  in  regard  to  isthmian  territory.  Inclosed 
please  find  copy  of  my  letter,  marked  "  C." 

On  the  afternoon  of  the  8th  instant  I  received  a  letter  from  the 
minister  of  foreign  relations,  saying  that  the  Republic  of  Panama 
would  protect  American  citizens  and  their  property,  as  well  as  to 
carry  out  all  treaty  obligations  in  regard  to  isthmian  territory.  In- 
closed find  translation  of  letter,  marked  "  D." 
I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

Felix  Ehrman, 
United  States  Vice  Consul  General. 


[Translation.] 

Circular  \  Republic  of  Panama.  Provisional  Government. 

No.  1.     J  Panama,  November  4,  1903. 

Sir:  We  have  the  honor  of  informing  you,  for  your  knowledge  and  that  of 
the  Government  which  you  represent,  that  in  this  date  a  political  movement  has 
taken  place  by  which  the  former  department  of  Panama  is  separated  from  the 
Republic  of  Colombia,  in  order  to  constitute  a  new  state  under  the  name  of 
"  Republic  of  Panama,"  and  that  those  who  subscribe  themselves  have  received 
the  honor  of  being  designated  to  form  the  Committee  of  the  Provisional  Gov- 
ernment of  the  Republic. 

We  beg  you  to  kindly  acknowledge  receipt  and  accept  the  sentiments  of  con- 
sideration, which  it  is  pleasing  to  subscribe  ourselves. 
Your  attentive  servants, 

J.    A.    Arango. 
Tomas   Arias. 
Federico     Boyd. 
The  Consul  General  of  the  United  States  of  North  America.  Pte. 


Panama,  November  5,  1903. 
Messrs.  J.  A.  Arango,  Tomas  Arias,  and  Federico  Boyd, 

Committee  of  the  Provisional  Government,  Panama. 
Sirs  :  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  receipt  of  your  circular  letter  No.  1, 
dated  November  4,  1903. 

I  am,  sirs,  very  respectfully,  yours, 

Felix  Ehrman, 
United  States  Vice  Consul  General. 
42112— S.  Doc.  474,  63-2 24 


370  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CAXAL. 


Panama,  November  7,  11)03. 
Messrs.  J.  A.  Arango,  Tomas  Arias,  and  Fedebico  Boyd, 

Committee  of  the  Provisional  Government,  present. 
Gents:  As  it  appears  that  the  people  of  Panama  have,  by  unanimous  move- 
ment, dissolved  their  political  connection  with  the  Republic  of  Colombia  and 
resumed  their  independence,  and  as  there  is  no  opposition  to  the  Provisioal 
Government  in  the  State  of  Panama,  I  have  to  inform  you  that  the  Provisional 
Government  will  be  held  responsible  for  the  protection  of  the  persons  and 
property  of  citizens  of  the  United  States,  as  well  as  to  keep  the  Isthmian 
transit  free,  in  accordance  with  obligations  of  existing  treaties  relative  to  the 
Isthmian  territory. 

I  have  the  honor  to  remain,  gentlemen,  very  respectfully, 

Felix  Ehrman, 
United  stales   Vice  Counsel  General. 


D. 

[Translation.] 

No.  2.]  Republic  of  Panama, 

Panama,  November  S,  1903. 

Sir  :  The  Committee  of  the  Provisional  Government,  informed  of  your  com- 
munication of  yesterday,  has  requested  me  to  inform  you  that  the  Republic 
of  Panama  shelters  the  most  sincere  determination  of  protecting,  as  it  has  so 
far  protected,  the  lives  and  properties  of  the  United  States  citizens,  determina- 
tion that  involves  for  the  Republic  a  sacred  aud  pleasant  duty,  and  that  in 
regard  to  the  obligations  existing  on  account  of  treaties  in  connection  with  the 
Isthmian  territories  heretofore  with  the  Republic  of  Colombia  are  now  with  the 
Republic  of  Panama  that  has  substituted  the  former  in  them  and  their  rights. 

With  the  sentiments  of  the  highest  consideration,  I  beg  to  remain, 
Very  attentive  servant, 

F.    Y.    DE   LA    ESPRIELLA. 

The  Yice  Consul  General  of  the  United  States  of  America. 


No.  463.]  Consulate  General  or  the  United  States, 

Panama,  November  9,  1903. 
Hon.  Francis  B.  Loomis, 

Assistant  Secretary  of  State,  Washington,  D.  C. 
Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  report  that  on  the  3d  of  November,  at 
about  G  p.  m.,  there  occurred  an  uprising  in  the  city  of  Panama.  It 
seems  that  everything  had  been  prearranged  witli  the  officials  of  the 
army  and  navy,  as  there  was  practically  accord  among  all  the  officers. 
General  Tovar,  General  Castro,  and  Commander  Tovar  of  the  gun- 
boat Bogota,  finding  out  about  the  movement  just  a  short  Avhile  before 
it  occurred,  rushed  to  the  barracks  in  the  hope  of  frustrating  the 
plans,  but  on  their  arrival  General  Huertas,  second  in  command  of 
the  troops  stationed  at  Panama,  and  chief  of  the  "  Colombia  Bat- 
talion,'' ordered  the  soldiers  out  and  arrested  the  above-mentioned 
generals,  together  with  Governor  Obaldia.  The  movement  was  to 
occur  at  8  o'clock,  but  as  the  people  had  assembled  and  everything 
in  readiness  they  moved  at  6  o'clock.  At  8  o'clock  a  boat  was  sent 
off  from  the  gunboat  Bogota,  saying  that  unless  Generals  Tovar  and 
Castro  were  set  at  liberty  immediately  they  would  bombard  the  town. 
This  note  was  not  answered  by  the  people  on  shore. 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL.  371 

At  about  10  o'clock  on  the  night  of  the  3d  the  Bogota  fired  several 
shells,  which  were  answered  by  the  fort.  These  shots  struck  in  dif- 
ferent parts  of  the  cit}',  and  one  Chinaman  was  killed.  After  firing, 
the  Bogota  hoisted  her  anchor  and  steamed  away.  She  was  sup- 
posed to  be  behind  some  islands  which  are  directly  in  front  of 
Panama.  On  the  morning  of  the  4th  I  received  information  direct 
from  one  of  the  chiefs  of  the  movement,  and  he  said  that  the  Bogota 
had  threatened  to  again  bombard  the  city,  and  on  this  I  immediately 
sent  word  by  telegraph  to  the  commander  of  the  Nashville  and  cabled 
the  Department.  The  consular  corps  met  in  this  consulate  general 
and  decided  to  send  a  protest  to  the  commander  of  the  Bogota,  pro- 
testing against  the  action  of  the  commander.  Inclosed  please  find 
copy  of  protest,  marked  "A."  This  letter  was  not  sent,  as  the  Bogota 
was  not  in  sight  and  no  boats  were  available  at  the  time.  The  gun- 
boat Twenty-first  of  November  (Padilla)  was  lying  off  Panama  all 
this  time,  but  did  not  try  to  intercept  or  pursue  the  Bogota.  On  the 
morning  of  the  4th  the  Twenty --first  of  November  came  in  and  an- 
chored near  the  fort,  and  in  the  afternoon  of  the  same  day  hauled 
down  the  Colombian  flag  and  hoisted  the  flag  of  Panama."  In  the 
afternoon  of  the  4th.  at  3  p.  m..  there  was  a  general  mass  meeting- 
held  in  the  central  plaza,  and  the  declaration  of  independence  was 
read  and  signed.  The  following  is  a  list  of  the  Government  officials, 
as  given  me  by  the  Committee  of  the  Provisional  Government : 

Committee  of  provisional  government,  J.  A.  Arango,  Tomas  Arias, 
and  Federico  Boyd;  minister  of  government.  Eusebio  A.  Morales; 
minister  of  foreign  relations,  F.  V.  de  la  Espriella ;  minister  of  war 
and  marine,  Xicanor  A.  de  Obarrio;  minister  of  justice,  Carlos  A. 
Mendoza ;  minister  of  finance,  Manuel  E.  Amador:  minister  of  public 
instruction,  Julio  J.  Fabrega;  chief  of  the  division  of  Panama,  Gen. 
Domingo  Diaz;  general  in  chief  of  the  army  of  the  Republic,  Gen. 
Esteban  Huertas;  commander  of  civil  battalion,  Gen.  Manuel  Quin- 
tero;  general  treasurer  of  the  Republic.  Serior  Albino  Arosemena; 
commander  of  the  gunboat  Twenty-first  of  November,  Gen.  H..  O. 
Jeffries. 

I  may  say  that  the  above  mentioned  are  all  men  of  high  standing  in 
Panama  and  men  who  have  had  wide  experience  in  public  affairs. 

During  the  recent  troubles  I  am  pleased  to  state  that  everything 
was  carried  on  in  an  orderly  manner,  and  I  have  not  heard  of  a  case 
where  foreigners  were  threatened  or  molested  in  any  way. 

Inclosed  I  send  you  clipping  from  the  Star  and  Herald  of  this  city 
containing  a  translation  of  the  declaration  of  independence  and  mani- 
festo by  the  committee  of  the  provisional  government,  marked  "  B." 

We  have  heard  several  stories  of  the  happenings  in  Colon,  but  I 
will  leave  that  to  be  reported  on  from  Colon,  as  we  have  received 
nothing  definite.  The  declaration  of  independence  was  read  and 
signed  at  Colon  at  1.30  p.  m.  on  the  afternoon  of  the  5th  instant. 

Telegrams  have  been  received  from  different  parts  of  the  depart- 
ment of  Panama,  and  all  say  that  independence  has  been  unanimously 
declared. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

Felix  Ehrman, 
United  States  Vict   Consul  General. 


372  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL. 


[Translation  ] 

Panama,  November  .),  1903. 
The  Commander  of  the  Bogota. 

Sir  :  The  consular  corps  of  this  city  considers  the  action  of  the  steamship 
Bogota,  under  your  command,  last  night  in  bombarding  a  defenseless  city  with- 
out advice  of  any  kind  to  the  consuls  is  contrary  to  all  rights  and  practice  of 
civilized  nations.  Consequently  the  consular  corps  protests  in  the  most  solemn 
manner,  and  holds  responsible  for  the  eorisequences  and  responsibilities  of  this 
act  whoever  is  to  blame,  furnishing  account  to  their  respective  Governments 
of  the  referred  circumstance 
Yours,  respectfully, 

Felix  Ehrman, 
United  States  Vice  Consul  General. 

E.    H.    ROHRWEGER, 

Acting  British  Vice  Consul. 
Emile  Grey, 
Agent  of  the  French  Consulate. 
Arthur  Kohpcke, 
Consul  of  Germany  and  in  charge  of  Italian  Consulate. 

A.  Jesurum,  Jr., 

Consul  of  Holland. 
Ed.  Jaramillo  Aviles, 

Consul  of  Ecuador. 
J.  F.  Arango, 
Consul  General  of  Guatemala. 
Federico  Boyd, 
Consul  of  Spain  and  of  Salvador. 
Jacob  L.  Maduro, 

Consul  of  Denmark. 

B.  D.  Fidanque, 

Consul  of  Belgica. 
J.  G.  Duque, 

Consul  of  Cuba. 
B.   Mendez, 

Consul  of  Mexico. 
Pedro  Arias, 

Consul  of  Brazil. 
Jeronimo  Ossa, 
Consul  of  Chile  and  Honduras. 
Juan    Vallarino, 

Consul  of  Peru. 

B. 

Declaration  of  independence  and  manifesto. 
I 

[Extract  from  Star  and  Herald,  Panama   (Republic  of  Panama),  Thursday,  November  5, 

1903.] 

Independence  of  Panama. 

/  "  Viva  la  Republica  de  Panama  !  " 

"  Viva  la  independencia  !  " 

At  last  the  State  of  Panama  has  awakened  from  the  torpor  which  appeared 
to  have  overpowered  all  branches  of  its  population.  The  people  have  at  last 
come  to  the  conclusion  that  there  was  no  hope  for  their  future  as  long  as  they 
remained  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  national  Government  as  a  department 
of  the  Republic  of  Colombia  and  have  risen  in  a  body  to  protest  to  the  injus- 
tice meditated  by  the  Bogota  Government  toward  them  in  refusing  its  sanction 
to  the  Herran-Hay  canal  treaty,  the  passing  of  which  treaty  actually  means 
life  or  death  to  the  State  of  Panama. [ 

The  cry  of  independence  was  started  on  the  evening  of  the  3d  and  taken  up 
by  every  Isthmian   as  one  body,   as  well   as  all   those  in  sympathy  with   the 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA   CANAL.  373 

cause.  Due  to  the  celebrated  Battalion  Colombia,  under  the  command  of  their 
intrepid  and  universally-beloved  commander,  Gen.  E.  Huertas,  being  in  sym- 
pathy with  the  movement  and  declaring  themselves  on  the  side  of  the  "  sepa- 
ratists," all  bloodshed,  fighting,  etc.,  has  been  avoided,  the  greatest  order  and 
unity  reigning  on  all  sides.  The  populace  repaired  without  distinction  to  the 
arsenal  and  were  supplied  with  the  necessary  arms  with  which  to  uphold  their 
independence. 

The  movement  had  been  planned  to  take  place  later  on  but  was  precipitated 
by  the  arrival  at  Colon  of  300  troops  under  command  of  Generals  Tovar  and 
Amaya  on  the  Cartagena  on  the  night  of  the  2d  instant.  The  only  deplorable 
incident  has  been  the  killing  of  two  Chinamen  and  part  destruction  of  two 
buildings  in  the  city  by  some  shells  thrown  from  the  cruiser  Bogota,  the  com- 
mander of  which  refused  his  adhesion  to  the  cause  and  threatened  to  bombard 
the  city  unless  Generals  Tovar  and  Amaya  and  their  staffs,  who  were  im- 
prisoned on  the  afternoon  of  the  3d  while  attempting  to  take  command  of 
the  garrison  in  this  city,  were  released  within  three  hours. 

This  request  was  not  acceded  to,  in  consequence  of  which  the  threat  was 
carried  out,  but  as  the  ship  has  got  very  little  coal  and  supplies  there  is  no 
doubt  that  she  will  not  be  able  to  hold  out  long  and  will  have  to  surrender 
to  the  21  de  Noviembre,  which  is  being  gotten  ready  for  giving  chase.  The 
consular  corps  met  and  signed  the  following  formal  protest : 

Panama,  November  .),  1903. 
The  Commander  of  the  Bogota. 

Sib  :  The  consular  corps  of  this  city  considers  the  action  of  the  steamship 
Bogota,  under  your  command,  last  night  in  bombarding  a  defenseless  city, 
without  advice  of  any  kind  to  the  consuls,  is  contrary  to  all  right  and  practice 
of  civilized  nations.  Consequently  the  consular  corps  protests  in  the  most 
solemn  manner  and  holds  responsible  for  the  consequences  and  responsibilities 
of  this  act  whoever  is  to  blame,  furnishing  account  to  their  respective  gov- 
ernments of  the  referred-to  circumstance. 
Yours,  respectfully, 

Felix  Eheman, 
Vnititi  states  Vice  Consul  General. 
E.  H.  Rohrweger, 
Acting  British  Vice  Consul. 
Emile  Grey, 
Agent  of  the  French  Consulate. 
Arthur  Koehpcke, 
Consul  of  Germany  and  in  charge  of  the  Italian  Consulate. 

A.  Jesurtjm,  Jr., 

Consul  of  Holland. 
Ed.  Jaramillo  Aviles, 

Consul  of  Ecuador. 
1.  F.  Arango, 
Consul  General  of  Guatemala. 
Federico  Boyd, 
Consul  of  Spain  and  of  Salvador. 
Jacob  L.  Maduro, 

Consul  of  Denmark. 

B.  D.  Fidanque, 

Consul  of  Belgica. 
J.  G.  Duque, 

Consul  of  Cuba. 
B.  Mendez, 

Consul  of  Mexico. 
Pedro  Arias, 

Consul  of  Brazil. 
Jeronimo  Ossa, 
Consul  of  Chile  and  Honduras. 
Juan  Vaelarino, 

Consul  of  Peru. 


374  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

In  compliance  with  an  invitation  stuck  up  and  distributed  all  over  the  city 
by  the  municipal  board,  Demetrio  H.  Brid,  president,  a  public  meeting  of  all  the 
corporations,  civilians,  military  and  religious  bodies  took  place  at  3  p.  m.  yes- 
terday at  the  Cathedral  Park,  where  the  act  of  independence  was  signed  by 
the  members  of  the  municipality,  the  chiefs  of  the  provisional  government,  etc., 
after  which  patriotic  speeches  were  delivered  in  profusion. 

The  provisional  government  has  been  composed  of  the  following  gentlemen: 
Jose  Agustin  Arango,  Federico  Boyd,  and  Tomas  Arias,  with  the  following 
ministers:  State,  E.  A.  Morales:  treasury.  M.  E.  Amador;  justice.  C.  A.  Men- 
doza ;  foreign  relations.  F.  V.  de  la  Espriella  ;  war  and  navy.  N.  A.  de  Obarrio. 

From  latest  information  we  regret  to  state  that  Colon  does  not  appear  in- 
clined to  join  the  movement  for  separation.  A  commission  from  that  city  ar- 
rived yesterday  evening  to  consult  with  the  chiefs  of  the  provisional  govern- 
ment here,  and  we  sincerely  hope  that  the  differences  of  opinion  existing  may 
be  amicably  settled  in  order  to  avoid  all  disturbance.  The  manifesto  and  decla- 
ration of  independence  we  have  translated  for  the  benefit  of  our  English 
readers. 

We  voice  the  sentiments  of  one  and  all,  natives  as  well  as  foreigners,  in  wish- 
ing great  prosperity  to  the  new  Republic. 

Hurrah  for  the  Republic  of  Panama  ! 

Hurrah  for  the  third  of  November! 

DECLARATION  OF  INDEPEXDF.XCK. 

In  the  city  of  Panama,  capital  of  the  district  of  the  same  name,  at  4  o'clock 
in  the  afternoon  of  the  4th  day  of  November.  1903.  the  municipal  council  by  its 
own  right  assembled,  there  being  present  the  following  members  of  the  city 
council:  Aizpuru.  Rafael;  Arango,  Ricardo  M. ;  Arias.  F.  Agustin:  Arosemena, 
Fabio;  Brid.  Demetrio  H. :  Chiari,  R.  Jose  Maria;  Cucalon,  P.:  Manuel,  J.; 
Dominguez,  Alcides ;  Lewis.  Samuel;  Linares,  Enrique:  McKay,  Oscar  M. ; 
Mendez,  Manuel  Maria  :  and  Vallarino,  Dario,  the  mayor  of  the  district  and  the 
municipal  attorney,  and  having  for  its  exclusive  object  to  debate  regarding  the 
situation  in  which  the  country  is  at  present,  and  to  decide  regarding  what 
should  be  most  convenient  toward  the  tranquility  for  the  development  and 
aggrandizement  of  the  citizens  that  constitute  the  ethnographic  and  political 
entity  denominated  the  Isthmus  of  Panama. 

Councilmen  Arias  F.,  Arosemena.  Chiari.  Brid,  Cucalon,  B.,  Aizpuru,  Lewis, 
and  Linares  carefully  took  under  special  consideration  the  historical  facts  by 
virtue  of  which  the  Isthmus  of  Pauarua.  by  its  own  free  will  and  in  hopes  of 
procuring  for  itself  the  ample  benefits  of  right  and  liberty,  cut  asunder,  on  the 
28th  of  November,  1821,  its  ties  from  Spain,  and  spontaneously  joined  its  des- 
tiny to  that  of  the  great  Republic  of  Colombia.  Reflections  were  made  tending 
to  show  that  the  union  of  the  Isthmus  with  the  old  and  modern  Colombia  did 
not  produce  the  benefits  that  were  expected  from  this  act,  and  on  mature  con- 
sideration particular  mention  was  made  of  the  great  and  incessant  injury  that 
has  been  caused  to  the  Isthmus  of  Panama  in  its  material  and  moral  inter- 
ests at  all  times  by  the  governments  of  the  nation  which  have  succeeded  each 
other  during  the  intervals  of  the  federation,  as  well  as  those  of  the  centrali- 
zation— injuries  which,  instead  of  being  looked  after  and  patriotically  remedied 
by  those  whose  duty  it  was,  were  being  augmented  each  day  and  increasing  in 
importance  with  a  persistency  and  ignorance  that  has  exterminated  in  the 
cities  of  the  department  of  Panama  the  inclinations  which  were  spontaneously 
felt  for  Colombia,  thus  demonstrating  to  them  that,  their  cup  of  bitterness 
overflowing  and  all  hope  of  the  future  being  lost,  the  moment  had  arrived  in 
which  to  dissolve  certain  ties  which  were  a  drawback  to  civilization,  which 
placed  insurmountable  barriers  to  all  progress,  and  which,  on  the  whole,  has 
produced  unhappiness,  upsetting  and  undoing  the  ends  of  the  political  union 
m  which  they  entered,  moved  by  the  necessity  to  satisfy  the  desire  of  prosper- 
ing within  the  right  respected  and  liberty  assured. 

In  view  of  the  circumstances  mentioned,  the  municipal  council  of  the  district 
of  Panama,  as  a  faithful  interpreter  of  the  sentiments  of  those  they  represent, 
declares  in  a  solemn  form  that  the  people  under  their  jurisdiction  from  to-day 
and  henceforth  sever  their  ties  with  Colombia  in  order  to  form,  with  the  other 
towns  of  the  Department  of  Panama  that  accept  the  separation  and  unite  with 
them,  the  State  of  Panama,  so  as  to  constitute  a  republic  with  an  independent 
government,  democratic,  representative,  and  responsible,  that  would  tend  to 
the  happiness  of  the  natives  and  of  the  other  inhabitants  of  the  territory  of  the 
Isthmus. 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CAXAL.  375 

In  order  to  practically  attain  the  fulfillment  of  the  resolution  of  the  people 
of  Panama  of  emancipating  themselves  from  the  Government  of  Colombia, 
making  use  of  their  autonomy  in  order  to  dispose  of  their  destiny,  to  establish 
a  new  nationality  free  from  all  foreign  elements,  the  municipal  council  of  the 
district  of  Panama,  for  itself  and  in  the  name  of  the  other  municipal  councils  of 
the  department,  places  the  administration,  working,  and  direction  of  affairs, 
temporarily  and  while  the  new  Republic  be  constituted,  in  a  board  of  govern- 
ment composed  of  Messrs  Jose  Agustin  Arango,  Federico  Boyd,  a  ml  Tomas 
Arias,  in  whom  and  without  any  reserve  whatsoever  it  gives  powers,  authoriza- 
tions, and  faculties  necessary  and  sufficient  for  the  satisfactory  compliance  of 
the  duties  which  in  the  name  of  the  Fatherland  are  confided  to  them. 

It  was  ordered  that  the  inhabitants  of  Panama  be  assembled  to  an  open 
council  in  order  to  submit  for  their  approval  the  ordinance  that  the  present 
minutes  contain,  and  which  was  signed  by  the  officers  and  members  of  the  cor- 
poration present. 

Demetrio  H*Brid.  R.  Aizpuru.  A.  Arias  F..  Manuel  J.  Cucalon  P..  Fabio 
Arosemena,  Oscar  M.  McKay,  Alcides  Dominguez,  Enrique  Linares,  J.  M.  Cbiari 
R.,  Dario  Vallarino,  S.  Lewis.  Manuel  M.  Mendez. 

The  secretary  of  the  council.  Ernesto  J.  Goti. 

In  our  next  issue  we  will  publish  the  very  extensive  list  of  the  signers  of  the 
above  declaration. 

MANIFESTO. 

The  transcendental  act  that  by  a  spontaneous  movement  the  inhabitants  of 
the  Isthmus  of  Panama  have  just  executed  is  the  inevitable  consequence  of  a 
situation  which  has  become  graver  daily. 

Long  is  the  recital  of  the  grievances  that  the  inhabitants  of  the  Isthmus  have 
suffered  from  their  Colombian  brothers;  but  those  grievances  would  have  been 
withstood  with  resignation  for  the  sake  of  harmony  and  national  union  had  its 
separation  been  possible  and  if  we  could  have  entertained  well-founded  hopes  of 
improvement  and  of  effective  progress  under  the  system  to  which  we  were  sub- 
mitted by  that  Republic.  We  have  to  solemnly  declare  that  we  have  the  sincere 
and  profound  conviction  that  all  the  hopes  were  futile  and  useless,  all  the 
sacrifices  on  our  part. 

The  Isthmus  of  Panama  has  been  governed  by  the  Republic  of  Colombia  with 
the  narrow-mindedness  that  in  past  times  were  applied  to  their  colonies  by  the 
European  nations — the  isthmian  people  and  territory  was  a  source  of  fiscal  re- 
sources and  nothing  more.  The  contracts  and  negotiations  regarding  the  rail- 
road and  the  Panama  Canal  and  the  national  taxes  collected  in  the  Isthmus 
have  netted  to  Colombia  tremendous  sums  which  we  will  not  detail,  not  wish- 
ing to  appear  in  this  exposition  which  will  go  down  to  posterity  as  being  moved 
by  a  mercenary  spirit,  which  has  never  been  nor  is  our  purpose;  and  of  these 
large  sums  the  Isthmus  has  not  received  the  benefit  of  a  bridge  for  any  of  its 
numerous  rivers,  nor  the  construction  of  a  single  road  between  its  towns,  nor 
of  any  public  building,  nor  of  a  single  college,  and  has  neither  seen  any  interest 
displayed  in  advancing  her  industries,  nor  has  a  most  infinite  part  of  those 
sums  been  applied  toward  her  prosperity. 

A  very  recent  example  of  what  we  have  related  above  is  what  has  occurred 
with  the  negotiations  of  the  Panama  Canal,  which,  when  taken  under  considera- 
tion by  Congress,  was  rejected  in  a  summary  manner.  There  were  a  few  public 
men  who  expressed  their  adverse  opinion,  on  the  ground  that  the  Isthmus  of 
Panama  alone  was  to  be  favored  by  the  opening  of  the  canal  by  virtue  of  a 
treaty  with  the  United  States,  and  that  the  rest  of  Colombia  would  not  receive 
any  direct  benefits  of  any  sort  by  that  work,  as  if  that  way  of  reasoning,  even 
though  it  be  correct,  would  justify  the  irreparable  and  perpetual  damage  which 
would  be  caused  to  the  Isthmus  by  the  rejection  of  the  treaty  in  the  manner  in 
which  it  was  done,  which  was  equivalent  to  the  closing  of  the  doors  to  future 
negotiations. 

The  people  of  the  Isthmus,  in  view  of  such  notorious  causes,  have  decided  to 
recover  their  sovereignty  and  begin  to  form  a  part  of  the  society  of  the  free 
and  independent  nations,  in  order  to  work  out  its  own  destiny,  to  insure  its 
future  in  a  stable  manner,  and  discharge  the  duties  which  it  is  .ailed  on  to 
do  by  the  situation  of  its  territory  and  its  immense  richness. 

To  that  we,  the  initiators  of  the  movement  effected,  aspire,  and  have  obtaiued 
a  unanimous  approval. 

We  aspire  to  the  formation  of  a  true  republic,  where  tolerance  will  prevail, 
where  the  law  should  be  the  invariable  guide  of  those  governing  and  those 


376  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL. 

governed,  where  effective  peace  be  established,  which  consists  in  the  frequent 
and  harmonious  play  of  all  interests  and  all  activities,  and  where,  finally,  civili- 
zation and  progress  will  find  perpetual  stability. 

At  the  commencement  of  the  life  of  an  independent  nation  we  fully  appreciate 
the  responsibilities  that  state  means,  but  we  have  profound  faith  in  the  good 
sense  and  patriotism  of  the  isthmian  people,  and  we  possess  sufficient  energy 
to  open  our  way  by  means  of  labor  to  a  happy  future  without  any  worry  or  any 
danger. 

At  separating  from  our  brothers  of  Colombia  we  do  it  without  any  hatred  and 
without  any  joy.  Just  as  a  son  withdraws  from  his  paternal  roof,  the  isthmian 
people  in  adopting  the  lot  it  has  chosen  have  done  it  with  grief,  but  in  com- 
pliance with  the  supreme  and  inevitable  duty  it  owes  to  itself — that  of  its  own 
preservation  and  of  working  for  its  own  welfare. 

We  therefore  begin  to  form  a  part  among  the  free  nations  of  the  world,  con- 
sidering Colombia  as  a  sister  nation,  with  which  we  shall  be  whenever  circum- 
stances may  require  it,  and  for  whose  prosperity  we  have  the  most  fervent  and 
sincere  wishes. 

Jose  Agustin  Akango. 

Federico  Boyd. 

Tomas  Arias. 


No.  13. 

PKESIDENT'S    MESSAGE    GIVING    CORRESPONDENCE    BETWEEN 
UNITED  STATES  AND  COLOMBIA. 

[Senate  Document  No.  51,  Fifty-eighth  Congress,  second  session.] 

CORRESPONDENCE  CONCERNING  THE  CONVENTION  BETWEEN  THE 
UNITED  STATES  AND  COLOMBIA  FOR  THE  CONSTRUCTION  OF  AN 
INTEROCEANIC   CANAL   ACROSS   THE   ISTHMUS   OF   PANAMA. 

MESSAGE  FROM  THE  PRESIDENT  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES,  TRANSMITTING  A 
REPORT  FROM  THE  SECRETARY  OF  STATE.  WITH  ACCOMPANYING  PAPERS. 
CONCERNING  THE  CONVENTION  BETWEEN  THE  UNITED  STATES  AND  CO- 
LOMBIA FOR  THE  CONSTRUCTION  OF  AN  INTEROCEANIC  CANAL  ACROSS 
THE  ISTHMUS  OF  PANAMA. 

[December  19,  1903:  Read;  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations  and  ordered 

to  be  printed.] 

To  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives : 

I  transmit,  for  the  information  of  the  Congress,  in  connection  with 
the  correspondence  already  transmitted  relating  to  the  recent  revolu- 
tion on  the  Isthmus  of  Panama,  and  contained  in  House  Document 
No.  8,  Fifty-eighth  Congress,  first  session,  parts  1  and  2,  a  report 
from  the  Secretary  of  State,  with  accompanying  papers,  concerning 
the  convention  between  the  United  States  and  Colombia  for  the  con- 
struction of  an  interoceanic  canal  across  the  Isthmus  of  Panama. 

Theodore  Roosevelt. 

White  House, 

Washington,  December  18,  1903. 


The  President: 

The  undersigned,  Secretary  of  State,  has  the  honor  to  lay  before 
the  President,  with  a  view  to  their  transmission  to  Congress  for  the 
information  of  that  body,  in  connection  with  the  correspondence 
already  transmitted,  relating  to  the  recent  revolution  on  the  Isthmus 
of  Panama,  and  contained  in  House  Document  No.  8,  Fifty-eighth 
Congress,  first  session,  parts  1  and  2,1  copies  of  the  correspondence 
between  the  Department  of  State  and  the  legation  of  the  United 
States  at  Bogota  concerning  the  convention  between  the  United 
States  and  Colombia  for  the  construction  of  an  interoceanic  canal 
across  the  Isthmus  of  Panama. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

John  Hay. 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  December  18,  1903. 

1  See  Nos.  11  and  12,  appendix. 

377 


378  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL. 

List  of  papers. 


From  and  to  whom. 


Date. 


Mr.  Loomis  to  Mr.  Beaupre  (tele- 
gram ) 

Mr.  Hay  to  Mr.  Beaupre  (telegram). 

Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay 

Same  to  same 

Same  to  same 

Same  to  same 

Mr.  I  lay  to  Mr.  Beaupre 

Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay 

Same  to  same 

Same  to  same  (telegram) 

Same  to  same 

Same  to  same 

Same  to  same  (telegram) 

Same  to  same 

Mr.  Hay  to  Mr.  Beaupre  (telegram) . 

Same  to  same 

Same  to  same  (telegram) 

Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay 

Same  to  same 

Same  to  same 

Same  to  same  (telegram) 

Same  to  same  (telegram ) 

Same  to  same 

Same  to  same I 

Same  to  same j 

Same  to  same  (telegram) \ 

Same  to  same  (telegram) ! 

Same  to  same 

Same  to  same 

Mr.  Loomis  to  Mr.  Beaupre  (tele-  j 
gram) 

Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay 

Same  to  same  (telegram) 

Same  to  same  (telegram) 

Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay 

Same  to  same  (telegram) 

Same  to  same  (telegram) ! 

Same  to  same 

Mr.  Hay  to  Mr.  Beaupre  (telegram). 

Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay  (telegram). 

Same  to  same ' 

Mr.  Loomis  to  Mr.  Beaupre' ' 

Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay ; 

Mr.  Loomis  to  Mr.  Beaupre  (tele-  \ 
gram) 

Mr.  Hay  to  Mr.  Beaupre  (telegram). 

Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay 

Mr.  Loomis  to  Mr.  Beaupre 

Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay  (telegram).  J 

Same  to  same  (telegram) I 

Same  to  same  (telegram) 

Same  to  same  (telegram) [ 

Same  to  same  (telegram) | 

Same  to  same 

Same  to  same j 

Mr.  Loomis  to  Mr.  Beaupr6  (tele- 
gram)  

Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay  (telegram). . 

Same  to  same  (telegram) ; 

Same  to  same  (telegram) j 

Mr.  Loomis  to  Mr.  Beaupn5  (tele- 
gram) ! 


1903. 

Mar.  18 
Apr.  7 
Mar.  30 
Apr.  15 
Apr.  24 
Apr.  27 
Apr.  28 
May  4 
May  5 
May  7 
May  7 
May  12 
May  28 
Mav  28 
May  30 
June  2 
June  9 
June  10 
June  10 
June  13 
June  17 
June  17 
June  20 
June  20 
June  20 
June  23 
June  25 
June  26 
July      1 

July  1 

July  2 

July  5 

July  .") 

July  6 

July  9 

July  11 

Julv  11 

July  13 

July  15 

July  21 

July  21 

July  22 

Julv  29 
July  31 
Aug.  3 
Aug.  3 
Aug.  5 
Aug.  5 
Aug.  5 
Aug.  5 
Aug.  6 
Aug.  7 
Aug.  10 

Aug.  10 

Aug.  12 

Aug.  12 

Aug.  12 

Aug.  13 


No. 


LOS 


From  and  to  whom. 


Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay 

Mr.  Loom;s  to  Mr.  Beaupre^  (tele- 
gram)   

Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay  (telegram).. 

Same  to  same 

Same  to  same  ( telegram) 

Same  to  same 

Mr.  Adee  to  Mr.  Beaupre(telegram) . 
Mr.  Hay  to  Mr.  Beaupre  (telegram).. 
Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay  (telegram).. 

Same  to  same 

Same  to  same  (telegram) 

Mr.  Hay  to  Mr.  Beaupre  (telegram). 
Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay  (telegram).. 

Same  to  same  (telegram) 

Same  to  same  (telegram) 

Same  to  same  (telegram) 

Same  to  same  ( telegram) 

Same  to  same  (telegram) 

Same  to  same 

Same  to  same  (telegarm) 

Same  to  same 

Same  to  same  (telegram) 

Same  to  same  (telegram) 

Same  to  same 

Same  to  same 

Same  to  same 

Same  to  same 

Same  to  same  (telegram) 

Same  to  same  (telegram) 

Same  to  same 

Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay  (telegram). 

Same  to  same  (telegram) 

Same  to  same 

Same  to  same 

Same  to  same 

Same  to  same 

Same  to  same  (telegram) 

Same  to  same 

Same  to  same 

Same  to  same 

Mr.  Hay  to  Mr.  Beaupre  (telegram). 

Mr.  Beauprt?  to  Mr.  Hay 

Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay  (telegram). 

Same  to  same  (telegram) 

Same  to  same  (telegram) 

Mr.  Hay  to  Mr.  Beaupre  (telegram). 
Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay  (telegram). 

Same  to  same  (.telegram) 

Same  to  same 

Same  to  same 

Same  to  same  (telegram) 

Same  to  same  (telegram) 

Mr.  Hay  to  Mr.  Beaupre  (telegram). 
Mr.  Beaupiv  to  Mr.  Hay  (telegram). 

Same  to  same  (telegram) : 

Same  to  same  (telegram) 

Same  to  same  (telegram) 

Mr.  Hay  to  Mr.  Beaupre  (telegram). 
Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay  (telegram). 

Same  to  came  (telegram) 

Same  to  same  ( telegram) 

Mr.  Hay  to  Mr.  Beaupre  (telegram). 


Date. 


1903. 
Aug.  15 

Aug.  15 
Aug.  15 
Aug.  17 
Aug.  17 
Aug.  18 
Aug.  19 
Aug.  24 
Aug.  24 
Aug.  24 
Aug.  26 
Aug.  29 
Aug.  29 
Aug.  30 
Aug.  31 
Sept.  •  1 
Sept.  2 
Sept.  5 
Sept.  5 
Sept.  10 
Sept.  11 
Sept.  14 
Sept.  17 
Sept.  18 
Sept.  22 
Sept.  24 
Sept.  25 
Sept.  28 
Sept.  30 
Sept.  30 
Oct.  9 
Oct.  14 
Oct.  10 
Oct.  15 
Oct.  16 
Oct.  16 
Oct.  17 
Oct.  19 
Oct.  20 
Oct.  21 
Oct.  22 
Oct.  23 
Oct.  23 
Oct.  27 
Oct.  29 
Oct.  30 
Oct.  31 


Nov. 

Nov.  2 
Nov.  4 
Nov.  4 
Nov.  6 
Nov.  6 
Nov.  7 
Nov.  7 
Nov.  9 
Nov.  11 
Nov.  11 
Nov 
Nov.  14 
Nov.  17 
Nov.  18 


12 


Mr.  Loomis  to  Mr.  Beaupre. 

[Telegram.] 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  March  IS,  1903. 
Inform  Colombian  Government  Senate  yesterday  approved  canal 
convention  without  amendment. 

Loomis,  Acting. 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL.  379 

Mr.  Hay  to  Mr.  Been/pre. 

[Telegram.] 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  April  7,  1903. 
Referring  to  requests  of  Colombia  to  canal  and  railroad  companies 
for  appointment  of  agents  to  negotiate  cancellation  of  the  present 
concessions,  et  cetera,  if  the  subject  arises  inform  the  Colombian 
Government  that  the  treaty  covers  entire  matter,  and  any  change 
would  be  in  violation  of  Spooner  law  and  not  permissible. 

Hay. 


Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

No.  741.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Bogota,  March  30.  1903. 

Sir:  The  matter  of  the  ratification  of  the  Panama  Canal  conven- 
tion is  intensely  interesting  to  the  people  of  this  capital,  and  there  is 
much  public  discussion  of  it.  Without  question  public  opinion  is 
strongly  against  its  ratification,  but,  of  course,  public  opinion  in 
Colombia  is  not  necessarily  a  potent  factor  in  controlling  legislation. 

It  is  quite  impossible  to  come  to  a  definite  conclusion  as  to  the  out- 
come until  the  result  of  the  recent  elections  for  members  of  Congress 
is  known.  It  has  been  generally  thought  that  the  Government  would 
be  able  to  control  the  elections  and  that  the  members  returned  would 
be  favorable  to  the  administration's  view  on  the  canal  question;  but 
there  has  been  serious  disappointment  to  the  governmental  party  in 
the  result  of  some  of  the  elections  heard  from,  prominent  and  able 
members  of  the  National  Party,  opposed  to  the  Marroquin  adminis- 
tration and  to  the  canal  convention,  have  been  elected.  Ex-Presi- 
dent Caro  and  Gen.  Pedro  Nel  Ospina,  Nationalists,  are  to  represent 
the  Department  of  Antioquia  in  the  Senate.  It  seems  altogether 
probable  that  unless  the  Government  is  thoroughly  in  earnest  in  its 
desire  to  have  the  convention  ratified,  it  will  not  be  done;  and  there 
is  a  possibility  that  it  may  not  go  through  in  an}7  event. 

There  is  no  public  information  as  to  the  date  at  which  the  Congress 
will  be  called,  but  from  private  source  I  am  given  to  understand  that 
it  will  be  about  the  20th  of  May,  owing  to  the  slowness  of  returns 
from  remote  election  districts. 

It  is  apparent  lately  that  the  French  Canal  Company  is  to  take  a 
decided  interest  in  securing  the  ratification  of  the  convention,  and 
that  its  influence  to  that  end  will  be  of  much  importance. 
I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant. 

A.  M.  Bkai  pre. 


Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  II ay. 

No.  6.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Bogota,  April  15,  1003. 
Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  advise  you  that  within  the  last  month 
there  has  been  such  a  sudden  outburst  of  controversy,  both  in  the 
Bogota  press  and  among  the  public  in  this  city,  with  regard  to  the 


380  DIPLOMATIC    HISTOEY    OP   THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

Panama  Canal  convention  that  I  feel  it  my  duty  to  report  on  what 
I  regard  as  the  chances  for  and  against  its  passing  Congress. 

During  the  long  revolution  which  has  but  lately  come  to  an  end 
the  measures  employed  by  the  Government  to  prevent  public  dis- 
cussion of  affairs  of  state  had  the  effect  of  destixrying  anything  like 
public  opinion.  It  may  have  been  for  this  reason  that  when,  in  the 
early  part  of  February  last,  news  came  of  the  signing  of  the  canal 
convention  complete  apathy  on  the  subject  seemed  to  reign,  as  far 
as  the  general  public  was  concerned.  The  financial  crisis  had,  pre- 
vious to  this  announcement,  reached  a  most  acute  stage,  and  the 
onty  feeling  expressed  was  that  of  relief  at  the  prospect  of  receiving 
$10,000,000,  which  was  then  considered  sufficient  to  put  in  reasonably 
good  condition  the  finances  of  the  country.  I  am  convinced  I  am 
right  in  saying  that  the  public  had  never  expected  better  terms. 
The  proof  is  that  when  the  news  of  the  signing  of  the  convention 
came  foreign  exchange  ran  down  from  10,000  per  cent  to  6,300  per 
cent,  and  when  it  was  rumored  that  the  United  States  Senate  had 
refused  its  assent  a  panic  immediately  ensued  on  the  market,  and 
exchange  at  once  rose  again  to  over  10,000  per  cent. 

This  was  the  state  of  affairs  until  General  Fernandez,  the  minister 
of  Government  in  charge  of  the  ministry  of  finance,  issued  a  circular 
to  the  Bogota  press  (which  had  suddenly  sprung  into  existence), 
inviting  discussion  on  the  canal  convention.  The  circular  was  to  the 
effect  that  the  Government  had  no  preconceived  wishes  for  or  against 
the  measure;  that  it  was  for  Congress  to  decide,  and  Congress 
Avould  be  largely  guided  by  public  opinion.  At  the  same  time  what 
purported  to  be  a  translation  of  the  text  of  the  convention  was 
published. 

Since  then  a  complete  revolution  in  feeling  has  taken  place.  From 
approbation  to  suspicion  and  from  suspicion  to  decided  opposition 
have  been  the  phases  of  change  in  public  sentiment  during  the  last 
month.  The  newspapers  of  the  city  are  full  of  strongly  worded 
articles  denouncing  the  convention,  and.  in  general,  these  articles 
show  the  most  bitter  hostility  to  a  scheme  which  they  represent  as 
being  the  attempt  of  a  strong  nation  to  take  an  unfair  advantage 
of  the  crisis  through  which  Columbia  is  passing,  and,  for  a  paltry 
sum.  rob  her  of  one  of  the  most  valuable  sources  of  wealth  which  the 
world  contains.  So  ridiculous  are  the  facts  brought  forward  by 
these  journalists  in  support  of  their  arguments  that  they  are  not 
even  worth  comment.  As,  for  instance.  I  may  mention  that  one  of 
the  most  widely  read  of  the  newspapers  states,  and  brings  forward 
a  whole  collection  of  figures  in  support  of  its  statement,  that  on  the 
initial  deal  alone  the  United  States  starts  with  a  clear  profit  of 
$190,000,000.  Absurd  as  such  statements  are.  they  voice  the  opin- 
ions and  convictions  of  the  Bogota  public. 

This  fact  is  clear,  that  if  the  proposed  convention  were  to  be  sub- 
mitted to  the  free  opinion  of  the  people  it  would  not  pass.  The  Con- 
gress about  to  assemble  lias  been  elected  under  the  supervision  of 
Government  officials,  and  a  system  of  quite  indigenous  wirepulling 
has  undoubtedly  been  used:  and  yet  if  Congress,  as  now  constituted, 
were  allowed  to  give  a  free  vote  I  feel  convinced  the  convention 
would  not  be  ratified. 

This.  then,  is  the  present  state  of  affairs.  As  to  what  will  happen 
it  is  impossible  to  predict:  yet  this  much  seems  certain  to  me.  if  it  is 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE    PANAMA   CANAL.  381 

the  wish  of  the  Government  that  the  convention  be  ratified  it  will  be 
done. 

It  now  seems  likety  that  Congress  will  be  convened  about  the  25th 
of  May  next  for  twenty  days. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

A.  M.  Beaupre. 


Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

No.  10. )  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Bogota,  April  24,  190S. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  refer  to  your  telegram  of  the  7th  instant, 
confirmed  elsewhere,  in  regard  to  the  negotiations  for  the  cancella- 
tion of  the  present  concessions  of  the  Panama  Canal  and  Railroad 
Companies. 

The  subject  had  not  arisen,  within  my  knowledge,  but  I  deemed  it 
best,  in  two  interviews  with  the  minister  for  foreign  affairs,  to  bring 
the  conversation  as  cautiously  as  possible  to  a  point  that  would 
enlighten  me.  I  can  not  say  that  his  excellency  showed  any  disposi- 
tion to  be  entirely  frank  in  the  matter,  but  sufficient  was  said  to  elicit 
from  him  the  information  that  such  negotiations  were  at  least  under 
the  consideration  of  the  Colombian  Government,  if  not  actually 
started.  I  then  imparted  to  the  minister  the  purport  of  your  tele- 
gram of  the  7th  instant,  whereupon  he  requested  me  to  convey  those 
instructions  officially.  This  I  did  in  a  note,  copy  of  which  I  here- 
with transmit. 

I  am,  sir.  your  obedient  servant. 

A.  M.  Beaupre. 


[Inclosures.] 

Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Bogota,  April  24,  1903. 
His    Excellency    Dr.    Luis    Carlos    Rico. 

Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs  of  the  Republic  of  Colombia,  etc. 
Sir:  Referring  to  the  two  interviews  I  have  had  with  your  excellency,  in 
which  the  question  of  the  negotiations  for  the  cancellation  of  the  present  con- 
cessions of  the  Panama  Canal  and  railroad  companies  and  other  matters  were 
brought  up,  I  have  the  honor  to  inform  your  excellency  that  I  am  in  receipt 
of  instructions  from  my  Government  on  the  subject. 

I  am  directed  to  inform  your  excellency,  should  the  subject  arise,  that  the 
entire  matter  above  referred  to  is  covered  by  the  recently  signed  convention 
between  the  Republic  of  Colombia  and  the  United  States  on  the  22d  of  January 
last.  Moreover,  that  any  change  would  be  in  violation  of  the  Spooner  law  and 
therefore  not  permissible. 

I  avail  myself  of  this  opportunity  to  renew  to  your  excellency  the  assurance 
of  my  highest  consideration. 

A.  M.  Beaupre. 


Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

No.  13.1  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Bogota,  April  27, 1903. 
Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  advise  you  that  it  seems  quite  impossible 
to  tell  just  when  the  Congress  will  be  convened.     Forty  days'  notice 
is  required,  and  no  notice  has  as  yet  been  given. 


382  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

In  a  conversation  with  the  minister  for  foreign  affairs  I  ascertained 
that  the  session  would  probably  commence  at  some  time  between  the 
middle  of  June  and  the  1st  of  July,  but  this  is  no  more  definite  than 
the  dates  I  have  mentioned  in  my  previous  dispatches. 

The  Government  is  evidently  "  mending  fences  "  in  many  election 
districts.  It  is  said  that  owing  to  the  disordered  condition  of  the 
interior  of  the  country,  especially  in  the  department  of  the  Tolima, 
elections  were  illegally  conducted,  for  which  reason  new  elections 
were  necessary.  Hence  the  delay  in  calling  Congress. 
I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

A.  M.  Beaupre. 


Mr.  Hay  to  Mr.  Beaupre. 

No.  6.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  April  28, 1903. 
Sir  :  I  confirm  to  you  my  dispatch  by  cable  of  the  7th  instant  in  the 
following  terms : 

Washington,  April  7,  1903. 
American  Minister,  Bogotd: 

Referring  requests  Colombia  to  canal  and  railroad  companies  for  appointment 
agents  negotiate  cancellation  present  concessions,  etc. 

If  subject  arises,  inform  Colombian  Government  that  treaty  covers  entire 
matter  and  any  change  would  be  in  violation  of  Spooner  law  and  not  permissible. 

Hay. 

and  I  now  inclose  to  you  copies  of  the  notices  given  by  the  minister  of 
hacienda  of  the  Republic  of  Colombia  to  the  New  Panama  Canal 
Company  and  the  Panama  Railroad  Company,  respectively. 

You  will  observe  that  by  these  notices  the  Colombian  Government 
contemplates  the  formal  grant  to  these  companies  by  the  Colombian 
Congress  of  a  further  permission  to  transfer  their  concessions  to  the 
United  States  besides  that  contained  in  the  treaty  which  is  to  be  rati- 
fied by  that  Congress.  You  will  also  note  that  as  a  preliminary  to 
this  permission  the  companies  are  expected  to  enter  into  agreements 
with  Colombia  for  the  authorization  and  canceling  of  all  obligations 
of  Colombia  to  either  of  them  contracted  by  Colombia  under  the 
concession. 

Such  action  on  the  part  of  Colombia  or  on  that  of  the  companies 
would  be  inconsistent  with  the  agreements  already  made  between  this 
Government  and  the  canal  company,  with  the  act  of  June  28,  1902, 
under  the  authority  of  which  the  treaty  was  made,  and  with  the  ex- 
press terms  of  the  treaty  itself. 

By  the  act  of  June  28,  1902,  the  President  was  authorized  to  ac- 
quire, at  a  cost  not  exceeding  $40,000,000,  "  the  rights,  privileges, 
franchises,  concessions,"  and  other  property  of  the  New  Panama 
Canal  Company,  and  an  agreement  to  that  end  was  made  by  him  with 
the  company.  It  was,  of  course,  known  to  the  President,  to  the  com- 
pany, and  to  the  Government  of  Colombia  that,  by  articles  21  and  22 
of  the  Salgar-Wyse  concession  of  1878,  the  company  could  not  trans- 
fer to  the  United  States  its  "  rights,  privileges,  franchises,  and  con- 
cessions "  without  the  consent  of  Colombia.  Therefore,  and  before 
entering  upon  any  dealings  with  the  New  Panama  Canal  Company, 
the  present  treat}'  with  Colombia  was  negotiated  and  signed. 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA   CANAL.  383 

The  first  article  of  that  treaty  provides  as  follows: 

The  Government  of  Colombia  authorizes  the  New  Panama  Canal  Company  to 
sell  and  transfer  to  the  United  States  its  rights,  privileges,  properties,  and  con- 
cessions, as  well  as  the  Panama  Railroad  and  all  the  shares  or  parts  of  shares 
of  said  company. 

The  authorization  thus  given,  it  will  be  observed,  covers  expressly 
the  "  rights,  privileges,  *  *  *  and  concessions  "  of  the  company, 
as  well  as  its  other  property. 

Colombia,  now,  by  these  notices,  indicates  a  purpose  not  only  of 
disregarding  the  authorization  thus  explicitly  given  (a  matter  to 
which  I  shall  refer  more  at  length  later  on),  but  to  destroy  a  great 
part  of  the  subject  matter  to  which  it  refers.  She  states  an  intention 
of  requiring  the  company  to  cancel  all  obligations  of  Colombia  to  it, 
and  thus  deprive  the  United  States  of  the  rights,  privileges,  and  con- 
cessions which  she  has  expressly  authorized  the  company  to  transfer 
to  them,  and  which  the  canal  company  has  contracted  to  sell  and  con- 
vey to  the  United  States. 

This  Government  can  not  approve  such  a  transaction  either  by 
Colombia  or  by  the  company.  If  the  company  were  to  accede  to  the 
demands  of  Colombia,  the  President  would  be  unable  to  consummate 
the  proposed  purchase  from  it,  for  it  would  have  surrendered  to 
Colombia  a  material  part  of  the  property  for  which  he  is  authorized 
to  make  payment.  Nor  could  the  treaty  itself  be  carried  out,  inas- 
much as  the  payments  to  Colombia  for  which  it  provides  are,  by  the 
express  terms  of  Article  XXV  of  the  treaty  itself,  to  be  made  in  com- 
pensation, not  only  for  the  right  to  use  the  Canal  Zone  and  to  indem- 
nify Colombia  for  the  annuity  which  she  renounces  and  the  greater 
expenses  which  she  may  incur,  but  also  "  in  compensation  for  other 
rights,  privileges,  and  exemptions  granted  to  the  United  States." 
Among  these  other  rights  and  privileges,  one  of  the  most  important  is 
the  right  of  acquiring  the  rights,  privileges,  and  concessions  of  the 
New  Panama  Canal  Company,  secured  by  Article  I  of  the  treaty,  and 
if  these  rights,  privileges,  and  concessions  were  to  be  canceled,  it 
would  fundamentally  change  the  terms  of  purchase. 

The  act  of  June  28,  1902,  requires  the  President,  if  he  should  make 
the  purchase  of  the  New  Panama  Canal  Company,  to  acquire  its 
"  rights,  privileges,  franchises,  concessions."  This  act  is  annexed  to 
the  treaty,  and  the  provisions  of  Article  I  of  the  treaty  are  framed 
expressly  so  as  to  enable  this  part  of  the  law  to  be  carried  out.  The 
action  proposed  by  Colombia  would  constitute  pro  tanto  an  annulment 
of  Article  I,  would  render  impossible  the  execution  of  the  law,  and  is 
wholly  inadmissible.  Equally  inadmissible  would  be  any  action  by 
the  canal  company  in  the  direction  indicated  which  would  destroy 
rights  which  it  has  agreed  to  convey  to  the  United  States. 

Nor,  upon  the  question  of  an  authorization  by  Colombia  of  the 
transfers  proposed,  can  it  be  admitted  that  any  further  or  other 
authorization  than  that  contained  in  Article  I  of  the  treaty  is  required 
or  would  be  proper. 

So  far  as  the  Panama  Railroad  Company  is  concerned,  it  is  enough 
to  point  out  that  Articles  XXVIII  and  XXIX  of  its  contract  with 
Colombia,  and  which  contain  the  only  provisions  which  impose  any 
restriction  upon  any  alienations  of  property  connected  with  that  com- 
pany, have  no  bearing  upon  any  transaction  now  in  contemplation, 


384  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

These  articles  declare  that  "  the  present  privilege  can  not  be  ceded  or 
transferred  to  any  foreign  government,"  under  penalty  of  forfeiture. 
No  transfer  of  this  privilege  by  the  company  is  contemplated,  nor, 
indeed,  any  transfer  by  the  company  of  anything.  The  purchase  by 
the  United  States  from  the  New  Panama  Canal  Company  of  certain 
shares  of  the  railroad  company  is  the  only  operation  now  proposed, 
and  this  does  not  affect  the  railroad  company  itself.  To  this  transfer 
of  shares  the  railroad  company  is  not  a  party  and  in  it  the  company 
has  no  part.  It  neither  makes  it  nor  can  it  prevent  it.  Plainly, 
therefore,  the  provisions  of  the  company's  contract  with  the  Colom- 
bian Government  can  have  no  application  to  such  a  transaction.  This 
is  irrespective  of  the  rights  in  relation  to  the  railroad  property  and 
concessions  which  the  United  States  acquires  under  and  pursuant  to 
the  provisions  of  the  treaty  itself. 

With  regard  to  the  New  Panama  Canal  Company  the  situation  is 
different  in  this  respect,  for  that  company  will  make  a  direct  transfer 
of  ail  its  property  and  concessions  to  the  United  States,  and  such  a 
transfer  was  originally  forbidden  by  articles  21  and  22  of  the  Salgar- 
Wyse  concession  of  1878. 

Passing,  for  the  moment,  the  terms  of  the  treaty  by  which  consent 
is  given,  the  consent  of  the  Colombian  Government  to  the  proposed 
sale  has  been  given  so  repeatedly  and  in  so  many  different  ways,  and 
has  been  so  frequently  and  officially  brought  to  the  notice  of  this  Gov- 
ernment by  the  ministers  plenipotentiary  of  Colombia,  duly  accred- 
ited to  the  United  States,  as  to  make  it  impossible  for  the  executive 
Government  of  that  Republic  to  retract  it.  The  entire  action  of  this 
Government  upon  the  subject  has  been  taken  in  reliance  upon  these 
official  assurances  of  the  consent  of  Colombia,  and  any  withdrawal  or 
qualification  of  that  consent  would  be  wholly  inconsistent  with  such 
assurances. 

In  a  memorandum  presented  by  Doctor  Martinez-Silva,  then  min- 
ister plenipotentiary  of  Colombia  to  the  United  States,  to  this  de- 
partment on  March  27,  1901,  this  Government  was  officially  assured 
that  the  Republic  of  Colombia  would  authorize  the  canal  company 
to  transfer  its  concessions  to  the  United  States,  provided  only  that 
the  latter  agree  with  Colombia  upon  the  terms  on  which  the  canal  is 
to  be  constructed  and  operated  by  the  United  States. 

On  April  29,  1901,  the  Colombian  minister  wrote  M.  Maurice 
Hut  in,  then  president  of  the  canal  company,  requesting  him  to  state 
generally  the  basis  on  which  the  company  would  transfer  its  property 
to  the  United  States,  assuming  that  the  consent  of  Colombia  be  given. 

This  letter  M.  Hutin  answered  on  May  1,  1901,  and  a  copy  of  Iris 
answer  was  by  the  minister  handed  to  Admiral  Walker,  president  of 
the  Isthmian  Canal  Commission.  M.  Hutin  thereupon  took  up  nego- 
tiations directly  with  Admiral  Walker,  of  which  fact  he  notified  the 
minister  by  a  letter  of  May  6,  1901.  In  answer  to  this  letter  the  min- 
ister wrote  M.  Hutin  on  May  7,  1901,  approving  his  action  and  stat- 
ing to  him  the  fact  that  it  was  stated  that  in  the  memorandum  sub- 
mitted by  him  to  this  department  "  no  condition  is  formulated  rela- 
tive to  the  sale  of  the  private  rights  and  interests  of  the  company." 

It  is  in  reliance  upon  these  assurances,  either  made  directly  to  this 
Government  by  the  duly  accredited  minister  of  Colombia  or  commu- 
nicated to  it  through  his  act,  that  the  action  resulting  in  the  present 


DIPLOMATIC    FTISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA   CANAL.  385 

treaty  has  been  taken,  and  to  raise  new  conditions  and  impose  new 
terms  upon  the  consent  thus  freely  tendered  or  to  cancel  any  provi- 
sions of  the  concessions  would  be  a  complete  departure  from  them. 
The  Government  of  Colombia  initiated  the  negotiations,  and  it  can 
not  be  conceived  that  it  should  now  disclaim  its  own  propositions,  nor 
can  this  Government  acquiesce  in  such  a  course. 

It  is  further  to  be  noted  that  the  Republic  of  Colombia  is  the  second 
largest  shareholder  in  the  New  Panama  Canal  Company.  At  the 
meeting  of  the  shareholders  of  this  company,  held  on  December  21, 
1901,  at  which  the  board  of  directors  was  authorized  to  make  the  pro- 
posal of  sale  to  the  United  States  which  has  been  accepted,  the  Re- 
public was  represented  by  M.  Uribe,  her  consul  general  at  Paris, 
specially  accredited  for  that  purpose,  who  was  one  of  the  officers  of 
the  meeting  and  voted  the  shares  of  Colombia  in  favor  of  the  sale. 
Similarly  at  the  meeting  of  the  board  of  directors  of  the  company 
on  December  23,  1901,  M.  Samper,  the  representative  of  the  Colom- 
bian Government  on  the  board,  voted  in  favor  of  the  sale. 

It  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  these  representatives  of  Colombia 
acted  without  or  contrary  to  instructions,  nor  has  their  action  ever 
been  disavowed  by  their  Government. 

These  various  considerations  show  that  the  Republic  of  Colombia 
is  fully  committed  to  the  United  States,  wholly  apart  from  her  ex- 
press agreement  by  the  treaty,  to  consent  fully  and  freely  to  the 
acquisition  of  the  property  of  the  New  Panama  Canal  Company  by 
the  United  States  without  other  terms  or  conditions  than  those  em- 
bodied in  the  treaty.  It  is  not  necessary  here  to  consider  the  ques- 
tions of  good  faith  toward  the  canal  company  which  would  be  raised 
by  new  exactions  of  that  company  at  this  time. 

The  foregoing  considerations,  however,  though  sufficient  in  them- 
selves to  justify  this  Government  in  declining  to  recognize  any  right 
in  the  Republic  of  Colombia  to  limit  the  consent  given  by  Article  I  of 
the  treaty  by  any  terms  or  conditions  of  any  kind,  are  less  important 
than  others  arising  from  the  actual  negotiations  attending  the  mak- 
ing of  the  treaty.  These  other  considerations  render  it  impossible 
that  any  such  new  limitations  should  even  be  considered  and  give  any 
attempt  by  Colombia  in  that  direction  the  character  of  a  serious 
departure  from  the  agreement  reached  between  the  Executive  Gov- 
ernments of  the  two  nations. 

The  treaty  in  its  present  form  is  the  result  of  certain  modifications 
in  an  original  form  presented  to  the  Department  of  State  by  Mr. 
Jose  Vicente  Concha,  minister  plenipotentiary  of  Colombia  to  the 
United  States,  on  March  31,  1902.  This  form  of  treaty  represented 
the  original  proposal  of  Colombia  to  the  United  States,  and  was 
presented  by  Mr.  Concha  shortly  after  the  recall  of  the  former  min- 
ister, Dr.  Martinez  Silva.  In  this  draft  the  terms  of  Article  I,  by 
which  Colombia  authorizes  the  sale  by  the  New  Panama  Canal  Com- 
pany to  transfer  its  property  to  the  United  States,  were  the  same  as 
in  the  actual  treaty.  In  fact,  this  article  has  undergone  no  change 
in  any  of  the  negotiations  and  it  now  expresses  Colombia's  original 
proposal. 

No  change  in  it  was  ever  even  suggested  by  Colombia,  in  all  the 
discussions  by  which  the  presentation  of  the  original  treaty  was  fol- 
lowed, until  November  11,  1902.    On  that  day  Mr.  Concha  submitted 

42112— S.  Doc.  474,  63-2 25 


386  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

to  this  department  a  memorandum  of  certain  changes  which  he 
desired  made  in  the  treaty  as  it  then  stood.  In  this  memorandum  a 
modification  of  Article  I  was  proposed  in  the  following  terms : 

This  same  article  shall  clearly  state  that  the  permission  accorded  by  Colom- 
bia to  the  canal  and  the  railroad  companies  to  transfer  their  rights  to  the 
United  States  shall  be  regulated  by  a  previous  special  arrangement  entered  into 
by  Colombia  with  the  said  company,  and  for  which  they  have  been  notified  that 
they  are  to  appoint  an  attorney  at  Bogota. 

To  this  proposal  this  department  answered  that  "  the  United 
States  considers  this  suggestion  wholty  inadmissible."  The  proposi- 
tion was  then  abandoned  by  Colombia,  and  the  treaty,  as  has  been 
said,  was  signed  by  authority  of  her  Government,  without  any  modi- 
fication of  the  absolute  authorization  to  the  company  to  sell. 

It  will  thus  be  seen  that  this  proposition  to  make  Colombia's  con- 
sent to  the  sale  dependent  upon  an  agreement  between  that  country 
and  the  canal  company  is  not  new ;  that  it  has  already  been  made  to 
this  Government  and  rejected,  and  that  it  was  only  upon  the  abandon- 
ment of  it  that  the  treaty  was  signed.  It  is  impossible  that  this 
Government  should  even  discuss  the  matter  any  further  or  permit 
this  rejected  and  abandoned  proposition  to  be  put  in  force  under  any 
form. 

The  argument  which  it  is  understood  has  been  advanced  by  Colom- 
bia in  support  of  her  pretensions  upon  this  point  (that  the  concession 
of  the  canal  company,  by  its  approval  by  the  Colombian  Congress, 
has  become  a  law  of  Colombia,  and  must  be  obeyed  as  it  stands  until 
by  another  laAv  it  has  been  amended)  can  be  allowed  no  force.  The 
contract  of  concession  was  approved  by  the  Colombian  Congress  in 
obedience  to  the  provisions  of  Title  VI,  article  76,  of  the  constitution 
of  Colombia.  The  present  treaty  is  to  be  ratified  by  the  Congress  of 
Colombia  under  the  provisions  of  the  same  title  and  the  same  article 
in  the  same  way.  If  every  force  be  allowed  to  the  constitution  of 
Colombia,  it  can  not  be  admitted  that  the  approval  of  the  treaty  by 
the  Congress  should  not  be  as  effectual  as  approval  by  the  same  body 
of  a  new  contract  between  the  company  and  Colombia. 

But  the  considerations  which  led  to  the  rejection  of  the  proposal  of 
the  Colombia  minister  in  his  memorandum  of  November  11,  1902,  are 
of  themselves  decisive  of  the  point. 

The  consent  of  Colombia  to  the  sale  of  the  canal  company's  prop- 
erty and  concessions  to  the  United  States  is  a  matter  of  agreement 
between  the  two  nations.  It  has  not  been  granted  by  Colombia  to  the 
company  alone,  but  also  to  the  United  States.  To  that  agreement 
neither  the  canal  nor  the  railroad  company  is  or  can  be  a  party ;  nor 
can  the  United  States  permit  its  international  compacts  to  be  de- 
pendent in  any  degree  upon  the  action  of  any  private  corporation. 
Such  a  course  would  be  consistent  neither  with  the  dignity  of  either 
nation  nor  with  their  interests.  To  make  the  effectiveness  of  the 
agreement  between  Colombia  and  the  United  States  depend  upon  the 
willingness  of  the  canal  company  to  enter  into  arrangements  with 
Colombia,  of  a  character  satisfactory  to  that  country,  would  not  only 
give  that  company  an  influence  which  it  can  never  be  permitted  to 
exercise  in  the  diplomatic  affairs  and  international  relations  of  this 
country,  but  would  enable  it  to  control  the  acquisition  by  the  United 
States  of  the  rights  granted  by  Colombia  and  the  enjoyment  by  Co- 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL.  387 

lombia  of  the  equivalent  advantages  secured  to  'her  by  the  United 
States. 

It  may  be  noted  further  that  such  a  course  would  practically  nul- 
lify Article  I  of  the  treaty.  That  article  grants  an  unconditional 
consent  to  the  sale.  But  if  there  be  added  the  condition  of  an  agree- 
ment between  Colombia  and  the  canal  company  this  consent  is  wholly 
nugatory.  No  such  arrangement  may  be  reached,  and  in  that  case 
Article  I  of  the  treaty  would  never  practically  take  effect.  Such  a 
possibility  alone  renders  any  such  plan  wholly  impossible. 

Upon  every  ground,  therefore,  the  present  proposals  of  the  Colom- 
bian Government  to  make  its  consent  to  the  sale  to  the  United  States 
of  the  property  and  rights  of  the  New  Panama  Canal  Company,  con- 
tained in  Article  I  of  the  present  treaty,  dependent  upon  arrange- 
ments between  it  and  either  the  canal  or  the  railroad  company,  is 
wholly  inadmissible,  and  if  the  subject  arises  you  will  inform  that 
Government  that  the  United  States  can  approve  no  dealings  between 
either  of  these  companies  and  Colombia  relating  either  to  that  con- 
sent or  to  the  sale. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

John  Hay, 

[Inclosures.] 

1.  Mr.  Jose  Ramon  Lago  to  the  president  of  the  New  Panama  Canal  Company, 
December  24,  1902. 

2.  Mr.  Lago  to  the  attorney  of  the  Panama  Railroad  Company.  December 
27.  1902. 


[Republic  of  Colombia,  ministry  of  finance,  No.  36.     First  section,   Panama   Canal  and 

Railroad  division.] 

Bogota.  December  2k,  1902, 
Mr.  President  of  the  New  Panama  Canal  Company. 

7  Rue  Louis-le-Grand,  Paris. 

The  congress  of  this  country  beting  about  to  meet  shortly  to  consider  among 
other  matters  that  relative  to  the  permission  which  the  Government  of  Co- 
lombia is  to  grant,  should  occasion  arise,  to  the  New  Panama  Canal  Company 
to  make  a  transfer  of  its  concessions  to  the  Government  of  the  United  States  of 
America  in  consequence  of  the  negotiations  which  have  begun  and  are  going  on 
upon  the  subject,  this  department  has  thought  it  its  duty  to  inform  the  company 
over  which  you  worthily  preside  of  this  fact,  in  order  that  it  may  appoint  in 
this  capital,  if  it  think  fit,  a  representative  of  it  who  should  be  present  when 
the  sessions  of  that  high  body  take  place,  provided  with  ample  and  sufficient 
authority  and  power  to  deal  with  all  the  points  which  are  to  be  settled  with 
the  company  concerning  the  rights  and  obligations  existing  between  it  and  this 
Republic ;  an  appointment  which  may  be  conferred  upon  its  present  agent,  Mr. 
Alexander  Mancini,  if  the  same  company  thinks  fit. 

It  will  not  be  superfluous  to  inform  you  that  the  Government  of  my  country, 
in  view  of  the  great  interests  which  the  French  people  have  in  this  colossal 
enterprise,  will  not  in  any  way  oppose,  and  on  the  contrary,  will  support  and 
second  the  granting  of  the  permission  for  the  transfer  of  the  concession ;  but 
it  will  demand  and  require  from  the  concessionary  company,  if  this  be  done, 
by  way  of  return,  a  sum  of  money  which  shall  be  previously  agreed  upon,  and 
the  cancellation  on  the  part  of  the  company  of  every  (accion)  undertaking  or 
obligation  which  the  Government  of  Colombia  has  contracted  by  virtue  of  the 
concession  for  the  opening  of  the  Isthmus  of  Panama,  up  to  the  date  on  which 
it  passes  to  the  new  concern. 

I  am,  your  very  obedient,  faithful  servant, 

Josfe  Ramon  Lago. 


388  DIPLOMATIC   HISTOEY   OF   THE   PANAMA  CANAL. 

[Republic  of  Colombia,   ministry  of  finance,  No,  38.     First  section,  Canal  and  Panama 

Railroad  division.] 

Bogota,  December  27,  1902. 
Mr.  Dr.  Eladio  Gutierrez, 

Attorney  Panama  Railroad  Company,  E.  L.  C: 

The  congress  of  Colombia  being  about  to  meet  shortly  to  consider  among 
other  matters  that,  relative  to  the  permission  which  the  Government  of  this 
Republic  is  to  grant,  should  occasion  arise,  to  the  New  Panama  Canal  Com- 
pany, to  make  a  transfer  of  its  concession  to  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  in  consequence  of  the  negotiations  which  have  been  begun 
and  are  going  on  upon  the  subject,  this  ministry  has  thought  it  its  duty  to 
inform  the  company,  worthily  represented  by  you,  of  this  fact,  in  order  that  it 
may  appoint  in  this  capital,  if  it  think  fit,  a  representative  who  should  be 
present  at  the  time  when  the  sessions  of  that  high  body  take  place,  provided 
with  ample  and  sufficient  authority  and  power  to  deal  with  all  the  points 
which  are  to  be  settled  with  the  company  concerning  the  rights  and  obliga- 
tions existing  between  it  and  this  Republic. 

It  will  not  be  superfluous  to  inform  you,  in  order  that  you  may  so  notify  the 
Panama  Railroad  Company,  if  you  thiuk  fit,  that  the  Government  will  not  in  any 
way  oppose  and,  on  the  contrary,  will  second  and  support  the  granting  of  the 
permission  for  the  transfer  of  the  concession,  but  it  will  demand  and  require, 
if  there  shall  be  occasion  for  it,  a  sum  of  money  which  shall  be  previously 
agreed  upon  and  the  cancellation,  on  the  part  of  the  same  company,  of  every 
(accion)  undertaking  and  obligation  which  the  Government  of  Colombia  has 
contracted  by  virtue  of  the  concession  for  the  construction  of  the  Panama 
Railroad  up  to  date  on  which  it  passes  to  the  new  concern. 
I  am,  your  obedient,  faithful  servant, 

J.  R.  Lago. 


Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

No.  17.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Bogota,  May  4, 1903. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  advise  that  the  opposition  to  the  ratifi- 
cation of  the  canal  convention  is  intensifying.  The  press  is  teeming 
with  articles  rancorous  in  enmity  to  the  proposed  treaty,  while  public 
opinion  is  veering  into  a  current  of  extreme  bitterness  against  the 
authors  of  the  pact,  especially  Mr.  Herran. 

A  gentleman  of  my  acquaintance  prepared  an  article  favorable  to 
the  convention  and  sent  it  to  the  publisher  of  a  newspaper  here.  The 
article  was  declined,  and  the  writer  admonished  that  it  would  be  to 
his  welfare,  with  his  views,  to  keep  out  of  the  controversy. 

Mr.  Mancini,  the  representative  of  the  French  Canal  Company  at 
the  capital,  says  that  he  is  emphatically  of  the  opinion  that  the  Con- 
gress will  refuse  to  ratify  the  convention,  and  that  he  has  written  to 
his  company  to  that  effect.  He  also  said  that  while  there  was  a  moral 
obligation  clearly  upon  the  Government  to  defend  a  contract  of  its 
own  making,  it  had  not  done  so,  and  evidently  did  not  intend  to  do 
so.  It  is  entirely  impossible  to  convince  these  people  that  the  Nica- 
ragua route  was  ever  seriously  considered  by  the  United  States ;  that 
the  negotiations  concerning  it  had  any  other  motive  than  the  squeez- 
ing of  an  advantageous  bargain  out  of  Colombia ;  nor  that  any  other 
than  the  Panama  route  ever  will  be  selected.  Therefore,  it  is  con- 
tended, and  generally  believed,  that  there  is  no  immediate  necessity 
of  confirming  the  Hay-Herran  convention ;  that  the  negotiations  can 
be  safely  prolonged,  in  the  end  securing  very  much  better  terms  for 
Colombia. 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  389 

The  public  discussion  is  largely  along  the  lines  of  the  loss  of  the 
national  honor  by  the  surrender  of  sovereignty;  that  the  clause  in 
the  convention  guaranteeing  sovereignty  means  nothing,  because  the 
lease  is  perpetual ;  that  the  whole  contract  is  favorable  to  the  United 
States  and  detrimental  to  Colombia. 

Private  discussion,  which  perhaps  more  clearly  reflects  the  real 
situation,  is  to  the  effect  that  the  price  is  inadequate;  that  a  much 
greater  sum  of  money  can  be  obtained,  and  that  the  United  States 
can  be  obligated  to  guarantee  the  sovereignty  of  Colombian  ports 
outside  the  Department  of  Panama  against  the  invasion  or  seizure 
by  foreign  enemies.  The  one  great  determining  point,  however,  is 
the  belief  that  the  price  can  be  greatly  augmented. 

The  Congress  has  not  been  called,  but  it  is  still  thought  that  the 
session  will  commence  about  the  1st  of  July. 
I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

A.  M.  Beaupre. 


Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

No.  18.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Bogota,  May  5, 1903. 
Sir  :  I  have  the  honor  to  advise  you  that  information  has  reached 
me  through  a  private  source  to  the  effect  that  within  a  week  or  two 
the  Colombian  Government  will  send  Gen.  Marcellano  Vargas,  a  son- 
in-law  of  Vice  President  Marroquin,  to  Washington,  to  negotiate  for 
better  or  different  terms  in  connection  with  the  Panama  Canal  con- 
vention. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

A,  M.  Beaupre. 


Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

[Telegram.] 

United  States  Legation, 

Bogota,  May  7, 1903. 
May  7,  4  p.  m. :  Special  session  of  Congress  has  been  called  for 
June  20. 

Beaupre. 


Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

No.  19.]  Legation  of  the  United  States. 

Bogota,  May  7.  1903. 
Sir  :  I  have  the  honor  to  advise  you  that  in  the  course  of  a  conver- 
sation I  had  yesterday  with  one  of  the  ablest  and  most  distinguished 
of  Colombians,  who  is  in  close  touch  with  the  vice  president  and  his 
administration,  the  question  of  the  Panama  Canal  convention  oppor- 
tunely and  confidentially  arose. 


390  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

His  views  are  interesting  and  entitled  to  consideration,  and  from 
them  I  gather  that  the  tremendous  tide  of  public  opinion  against  the 
canal  treaty  is  appalling  to  the  Government,  and  there  is,  in  conse- 
quence, a  diversity  of  opinion  among  its  members  as  to  the  proper 
course  to  pursue.  Some  are  in  favor  of  forcing  confirmation  through 
Congress,  while  others,  dreading  the  effect  of  such  action  in  the  pres- 
ent state  of  the  public  mind,  counsel  moderation  and  delay,  and  the 
adoption  of  measures  to  change  public  sentiment  into  a  more  favor- 
able channel. 

All  of  the  enemies  of  the  Government  are  united  in  an  onslaught 
upon  the  canal  convention.  Many  of  them  are  sincere,  of  course,  in 
their  opposition  to  the  proposed  treaty  as  such,  but  many  more, 
regarding  it  as  an  administration  measure  and  at  present  unpopular, 
are  assailing  it  with  the  indirect  object  of  undermining  the  Govern- 
ment. 

My  informant  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  convention  may  eventually 
be  confirmed,  but  only  after  much  discussion  and  maneuvering  in 
Congress.  The  probabilities  are  that  when  the  measure  is  presented 
to  Congress  there  will  be  a  lengthy  debate  and  an  adverse  vote. 
Then  the  representatives  of  the  coast  departments  of  the  Cauca- 
Panama,  and  Bolivar  will  ask  for  a  reconsideration,  and  urge  a 
ratification  of  the  convention  as  the  only  means  of  preventing  the 
secession  of  those  departments  and  the  attempt  to  constitute  of  their 
territories  an  independent  republic.  The  debate  will  be  resumed 
and  in  the  end  the  friends  of  the  Government  and  of  confirmation 
will  prevail. 

My  informant  is  on  such  intimate  terms  with  the  chief  officers  of 
the  Government  that  I  deem  it  best  to  transmit  his  statements  for 
your  consideration. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

A.  M.  Beaupre. 


Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

No.  24.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Bogota,  May  12,  1903. 
Sir:  In  my  No.  17,  of  the  4th  instant,  I  referred  to  the  abuse  which 
the  authors  "of  the  Panama  Canal  convention  were  receiving  at  the 
hands  of  the  press  of  the  country.  Apropos  of  this.  I  have  the  honor 
to  give  you  an  extract  from  an  article  written  by  Dr.  Juan  B. 
Perez  y  Sota,  a  senator  in  the  coming  Congress  from  the  Department 
of  Panama,  which  appeared  in  El  Correo  National  of  yesterday. 
The  article  is  long,  abounds  in  vituperation,  and  closes  as  follows: 

The  Herran  treaty  will  be  rejected,  and  rejected  by  a  unanimous  vote  in  both 
chambers.  Thai  is  what  I  hope,  since  there  will  not  be  a  single  representative 
of  the  nation  who  will  believe  the  voice  of  people  who  have  sold  themselves; 
who  have  had  the  brazenness  to  recommend  the  shameful  compact.  The  insult, 
however,  which  Kerran  has  cast  upon  the  Colombian  name  will  never  be  wiped 
out. 

The  gallows  would  be  a  small  punishment  for  a  criminal  of  this  class. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

A.  M.  Beaupre. 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL.  391 

Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

[Telegram.] 

United  States  Legation, 
Bogota,  May  28, 1903.  (Received  9.28  p.  m.,  29.) 
May  28,  10  a.  m.  Am  informed  that  the  President  has  received  a 
telegram  relating  to  large  number  United  States  employees  lately 
arrived  at  Isthmus.  If  explanation  should  be  asked,  what  answer 
shall  I  make  ?  If  it  is  true,  it  will  intensify  opposition  to  the  ratifica- 
tion of  the  convention. 

Beaupre. 


Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

No.  37.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Bogota,  May  28, 1903. 

Sir  :  Referring  to  my  telegram  of  this  date,  elsewhere  confirmed,  I 
have  the  honor  to  advise  you  that  there  was  considerable  excitement 
about  the  Government  palace  yesterday  upon  the  receipt  of  news  that 
about  150  employees  of  the  United  States  had  arrived  at  the  Isthmus, 
and  a  cable  was  sent  to  the  governor  of  Panama  asking  for  informa- 
tion. 

While  the  better  informed  seemed  to  understand  that  such  em- 
ployees were  but  necessary  to  the  commission  in  the  work  it  was  en- 
gaged upon,  others  were  disposed  to  take  a  more  unfriendly  view,  and 
all  were  of  the  opinion  that  in  the  present  excitable  condition  of  the 
public  mind  the  news,  if  it  proved  true,  would  have  an  unfavorable 
effect  upon  the  ratification  of  the  canal  convention. 
I  am.  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

A.  M.  Beaupre. 


Mr.  Hay  to  Mr.  Beaupre. 

[Telegram.] 

Department  of  State, 
Washington,  May  30,  1903. 
The  report  that  there  is  a  large  number  of  United  States  officials  or 
citizens  on  Isthmus  absolutely  false.     Deny  it  promptly  and  emphati- 
cally.    This  Government  has  three  engineers  there  inspecting  canal 
work.    Also  there  may  be  a  few  engineers  sent  by  private  contractors. 

Hay. 


Mr.  Hay  to  Mr.  Beaupre. 

No.  15.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  June  2, 1903. 

Sir:  I  have  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  No.  6,  confidential, 
of  April  15,  last,  in  regard  to  the  Panama  Canal  convention. 

Your  report  has  been  read  with  much  interest. 


392  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

The  department  expects  you  to  keep  it  fully  informed  respecting 
the  situation  in  Bogota  and  Colombia,  so  far  as  the  ratification  of  the 
treaty  is  concerned. 

From  your  long  residence  there  you  ought  to  be  in  a  position  to  be 
in  close  touch  with  every  phase  of  the  situation  and  to  know  and 
understand  the  intricacies  of  Colombian  politics  as  they  may  bear 
upon  the  very  important  question  at  issue.  The  department  desires 
all  of  the  pertinent,  accurate  information  that  it  can  obtain,  and 
wants  it  promptly.  You  should,  when  the  time  seems  opportune,  in 
so  far  as  you  discreetly  and  properly  may,  exert  your  influence  in 
favor  of  ratification.  It  is  also  expected  that  you  will  know  what 
hostile  influences,  if  any,  are  at  work  against  the  ratification  of  the 
treaty,  and  whether  or  not  there  is  opposition  to  it  from  European 
sources.  The  situation  is  seemingly  a  grave  one,  but  the  department 
has  confidence  that  you  will  rise  to  the  full  measure  of  its  require- 
ments. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

John  Hay. 


Mr.  Hay  to  Mr.  Beawpre. 

[Telegram.] 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  June  9, 1903. 
The  Colombian  Government  apparently  does  not  appreciate  the 
gravity  of  the  situation.  The  canal  negotiations  were  initiated  by 
Colombia,  and  were  energetically  pressed  upon  this  Government  for 
several  years.  The  propositions  presented  by  Colombia,  with  slight 
modifications,  were  finally  accepted  by  us.  In  virtue  of  this  agree- 
ment our  Congress  reversed  its  previous  judgment  and  decided  upon 
the  Panama  route.  If  Colombia  should  now  reject  the  treaty  or  un- 
duly delay  its  ratification,  the  friendly  understanding  between  the 
two  countries  would  be  so  seriously  compromised  that  action  might 
be  taken  by  the  Congress  next  winter  which  every  friend  of  Colombia 
would  regret.  Confidential.  Communicate  substance  of  this  verbally 
to  the  minister  of  foreign  affairs.  If  he  desires  it.  give  him  a  copy  in 
form  of  memorandum. 

Hay. 


Mr.  Beawpre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

No.  44.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Bogota,  June  10,  1903. 
Sir:  Referring  to  the  department's  No.  6  of  April  28,  1903,  con- 
cerning the  request  of  the  Colombian  Government  to  the  Panama 
Canal  and  Railroad  companies  for  the  appointment  of  agents  to 
negotiate  the  cancellation  of  present  concessions,  etc.,  and  considering 
that  the  subject  had  arisen,  as  reported  in  my  No.  10  of  April  24, 
1903,  I  have  the  honor  to  report  that  I  have  this  day  addressed  a  note 
to  the  minister  for  foreign  affairs  pursuant  to  the  department's  in- 
structions. 

Herewith  I  transmit  a  copy  of  said  note. 
I  am.  sir.  your  obedient  servant. 

A.  M.  Beaupre. 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA  CANAL.  393 

[Inclosure.] 

Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Bogotd,  June  10,  1918. 
His  Excellency  Luis  Carlos  Rico, 

Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs  of  the  Republic  of  Colombia, 

Sib:  Referring  to  the  note  which  I  had  the  honor  to  address  to  your  excel- 
lency on  April  24,  1903,  concerning  the  requests  of  the  Colombian  Government 
to  the  Panama  Canal  and  Railroad  companies  for  the  appointment  of  agents  to 
negotiate  the  cancellation  of  present  concessions,  etc.,  I  now  inclose  to  you  copies 
of  the  notice  given  by  the  minister  of  hacienda  of  the  Republic  of  Colombia  to 
the  New  Panama  Canal  Company  and  the  Panama  Railroad  Company. 

Your  excellency  will  observe  that  by  these  notices  the  Colombian  Government 
contemplates  the  formal  grant  to  these  companies  by  the  Colombian  Congress  of 
a  further  permission  to  transfer  their  concessions  to  the  United  States  besides 
that  contained  in  the  treaty  which  is  to  be  ratified  by  that  Congress.  Your 
excellency  will  also  note  that,  as  a  preliminary  to  this  permission,  the  com- 
panies are  expected  to  enter  into  agreements  with  Colombia  for  the  authoriza- 
tion and  cancelling  of  all  obligations  of  Colombia  to  either  of  them  contracted 
by  Colombia  under  the  concessions. 

Such  action  on  the  part  of  Colombia  or  on  the  part  of  the  companies  would  be 
inconsistent  with  the  agreements  already  made  between  my  Government  and  the 
canal  company,  with  the  act  of  June  28,  1902,  under  the  authority  of  which  the 
treaty  was  made,  and  with  the  express  terms  of  the  treaty  itself. 

By  the  act  of  Juue  28,  1902,  the  President  of  the  United  States  was  au- 
thorized to  acquire,  at  a  cost  not  exceeding  $40,000,000,  "the  rights,  privileges, 
franchises,  concessions,"  and  other  property  of  the  New  Panama  Canal  Com- 
pany, and  an  agreement  to  that  end  was  made  by  him  with  the  company.  It 
was,  of  course,  known  to  the  President,  to  the  company,  and  to  the  Government 
of  Colombia  that,  by  articles  2  land  22  of  the  Salgar-Wyse  concession  of  1878, 
the  company  could  not  transfer  to  the  United  States  its  "rights,  privileges, 
franchises,  and  concessions "  without  the  consent  of  Colombia.  Therefore, 
and  before  entering  upon  any  dealings  with  the  New  Panama  Canal  Company, 
the  present  treaty  with  Colombia  was  negotiated  and  signed. 

The  first  article  of  that  treaty  provides  as  follows : 

"  The  Government  of  Colombia  authorizes  the  New  Panama  Canal  Company 
to  sell  and  transfer  to  the  United  States  its  rights,  privileges,  properties,  and 
concessions,  as  well  as  the  Panama  Railroad  and  all  the  shares  or  parts  of 
shares  of  said  company." 

The  authorization  thus  given,  it  will  be  observed,  covers  expressly  the  "  rights, 
privileges,  *  *  *  and  concessions "  of  the  company,  as  well  as  its  other 
property. 

Colombia,  now,  by  these  notices,  indicates  a  purpose  not  only  of  disregarding 
the  authorization  thus  explicitly  given  (a  matter  to  which  I  shall  refer  more  at 
length  later  on),  but  to  destroy  a  great  part  of  the  subject-matter  to  which  it 
refers.  She  states  an  intention  of  requiring  the  company  to  cancel  all  obliga- 
tions of  Colombia  to  it,  and  thus  to  deprive  the  United  States  of  the  rights, 
privileges,  and  concessions  which  she  has  expressly  authorized  the  company 
to  transfer  to  them,  and  which  the  canal  company  has  contracted  to  sell  and 
convey  to  the  United  States. 

My  Government  can  not  approve  such  a  transaction  either  by  Colombia  or  by 
the  company.  If  the  company  were  to  accede  to  the  demands  of  Colombia,  the 
President  of  the  LTnited  States  would  be  unable  to  consummate  the  proposed 
purchase  from  it,  for  it  would  have  surrendered  to  Colombia  a  material  part 
of  the  property  for  which  he  is  authorized  to  make  payment.  Nor  could  the 
treaty  itself  be  carried  out,  inasmuch  as  the  payments  to  Colombia,  for  which 
it  provides,  are,  by  the  express  terms  of  Article  XXV  of  the  treaty  itself,  to  be 
made  in  compensation,  not  only  for  the  right  to  use  the  Canal  Zone  and  to 
indemnify  Colombia  for  the  annuity  which  she  renounces  and  the  greater 
expenses  which  she  may  incur,  but  also,  "  in  compensation  for  other  rights, 
privileges,  and  exemptions  granted  to  the  United  States."  Among  these  other 
rights  and  privileges,  one  of  the  most  important  is  the  right  of  acquiring  the 
rights,  privileges,  and  concessions  of  the  New  Panama  Canal  Company,  secured 
by  Article  I  of  the  treaty ;  and  if  these  rights,  privileges,  and  concessions  were 
to  be  canceled,  it  would  fundamentally  change  the  terms  of  purchase. 

The  act  of  June  28,  1902,  requires  the  President  of  the  United  States,  if  he 
should  make  the  purchase  of  the  New  Panama  Canal  Company,  to  acquire  its 


394  DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

"  rights,  privileges,  and  franchises  and  concessions."  This  act  is  annexed  to 
the  treaty,  and  the  provisions  of  Article  I  of  the  treaty  are  framed  expressly 
so  as  to  enable  this  part  of  the  law  to  be  carried  out.  The  action  proposed 
by  Colombia  would  constitute  pro  tanto  an  annulment  of  Article  I,  would 
render  impossible  the  execution  of  the  law,  and  is  wholly  inadmissible.  Equally 
inadmissible  would  be  any  action  by  the  canal  company  in  the  direction  indi- 
cated which  would  destroy  rights  it  has  agreed  to  convey  to  the  United  States. 

Nor  upon  the  question  of  an  authorization  by  Colombia  .of  the  transfers  pro- 
posed can  it  be  admitted  that  any  further  or  other  authorization  than  that 
contained  in  Article  I  of  the  treaty  is  required  or  would  be  proper. 

So  far  as  the  Panama  Railroad  is  concerned,  it  is  enough  to  point  out  that 
articles  28  and  29  of  its  contract  with  Colombia,  and  which  contain  the  only 
provisions  which  impose  any  restrictions  upon  any  alienations  of  property  con- 
nected with  that  company,  have  no  bearing  on  any  transaction  now  in  contem- 
plation. These  articles  declare  that  "  the  present  privilege  can  not  be  ceded 
or  transferred  to  any  foreign  Government "  under  penalty  of  forfeiture.  No 
transfer  of  this  privilege  by  the  company  is  contemplated,  nor.  indeed,  any 
transfer  by  the  company  of  anything.  The  purchase  by  the  United  States 
from  the  New  Panama  Canal  Company  of  certain  shares  of  the  railroad  com- 
pany is  the  only  operation  now  proposed,  and  this  does  not  affect  the  railroad 
company  itself.  To  this  transfer  of  shares  the  railroad  company  is  not  a  party, 
and  in  it  the  company  has  no  part.  It  neither  makes  it  nor  can  it  prevent  it. 
Plainly,  therefore,  the  provisions  of  the  company's  contract  with  the  Colombian 
Government  can  have  no  application  to  such  a  transaction.  This  is  irrespective 
of  the  rights  in  relation  to  the  railroad  property  and  concessions  which  the 
United  States  acquires  under  and  pursuant  to  the  provisions  of  the  treaty  itself. 

With  regard  to  the  New  Panama  Canal  Company,  the  situation  is  different,  in 
this  respect,  for  that  company  will  make  a  direct  transfer  of  all  its  property 
and  concessions  to  the  United  States,  and  such  a  transfer  was  originally  for- 
bidden by  articles  21  and  22  of  the  Salger-Wyse  concession  of  1878. 

Passing,  for  the  moment,  the  terms  of  the  treaty  by  which  consent  is  given, 
the  consent  of  the  Colombian  Government  to  the  proposed  sale  has  been  given 
so  repeatedly  and  in  so  many  different  ways  and  has  been  so  frequently  and 
officially  brought  to  the  notice  of  my  Government  by  the  ministers  plenipoten- 
tiary of  Colombia  duly  accredited  to  the  United  States,  as  to  make  it  impossible 
for  the  executive  government  of  that  Republic  to  retract  it.  The  entire  action 
of  my  Government  upon  the  subject  has  been  taken  in  reliance  upon  these 
official  assurances  of  the  consent  of  Colombia,  and  any  withdrawal  or  qualifica- 
tion of  that  consent  would  be  wholly  inconsistent  with  such  assurances. 

In  a  memorandum  presented  by  Dr.  Martinez-Silva,  then  minister  plenipoten- 
tiary of  Colombia  to  the  United  States,  to  the  Department  of  State  at  Washing- 
ton on  March  27,  1901,  my  Government  was  officially  assured  that  the  Republic 
of  Colombia  would  authorize  the  canal  company  to  transfer  its  concessions  to 
the  United  States,  provided  only  that  the  latter  agree  with  Colombia  upon  the 
terms  on  which  the  canal  is  to  be  constructed  and  operated  by  the  United  States. 

On  April  29,  1901,  the  Colombian  minister  wrote  M.  Maurice  Hutin,  then 
president  of  the  canal  company,  requesting  him  to  state  generally  the  basis  on 
which  the  company  would  transfer  its  property  to  the  United  States,  assuming 
that  the  consent  of  Colombia  be  given. 

This  letter  M.  Hutin  answered  on  May  1,  1901,  and  a  copy  of  his  answer  was 
by  the  minister  handed  to  Admiral  Walker,  president  of  the  Isthmian  Canal 
Commission.  M.  Hutin  thereupon  took  up  negotiations  directly  with  Admiral 
Walker,  of  which  fact  he  notified  the  minister  by  a  letter  of  May  6.  1901.  In 
answer  to  this  letter  the  minister  wrote  M.  Hutin  on  May  7,  1901.  approving 
his  action  and  stating  to  him  the  fact  that  it  was  stated  in  the  memorandum 
submitted  by  him  to  the  Department  of  State  "  no  condition  is  formulated  rela- 
tive to  the  sale  of  the  private  rights  and  interests  of  the  company." 

It  is  in  reliance  upon  these  assurances,  either  made  directly  to  my  Govern- 
ment by  the  duly  accredited  minister  of  Colombia,  or  communicated  to  it 
through  his  act,  that  the  action  resulting  in  the  present  treaty  has  been  taken, 
and  to  raise  new  conditions  and  impose  new  terms  upon  the  consent  thus  freely 
tendered,  or  to  cancel  any  provisions  of  the  concessions,  would  be  a  complete 
departure  from  them.  The  Government  of  Colombia  initiated  the  negotiations, 
and  it  can  not  be  conceived  that  it  should  now  disclaim  its  own  propositions, 
nor  can  my  Government  asquiesce  in  such  a  course. 

It  is  further  to  be  noted  that  the  Republic  of  Colombia  is  the  second  largest 
shareholder  in  the  New  Panama  Canal  Company.     At  a  meeting  of  the  share- 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY    OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  395 

holders  of  this  company  held  on  December  21.  1901,  at  which  the  board  of 
directors  was  authorized  to  make  the  proposal  of  sale  to  the  United  States, 
which  has  been  accepted,  the  Republic  was  represented  by  M.  Uribe,  her  consul- 
general  at  Paris,  specially  accredited  for  that  purpose,  who  was  one  of  the 
officers  of  the  meeting  and  voted  the  shares  of  Colombia  in  favor  of  the  sale. 
Similarly,  at  the  meeting  of  the  board  of  directors  of  the  company  on  December 
23,  1901,  M.  Samper,  the  representative  of  the  Colombian  Government  on  the 
board,  voted  in  favor  of  the  sale. 

It  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  these  representatives  of  Colombia  acted  without 
or  contrary  to  instructions,  nor  has  their  action  ever  been  disavowed  by  their 
Government. 

These  various  considerations  show  that  the  Republic  of  Colombia  is  fully  com- 
mitted to  the  United  States,  wholly  apart  from  her  express  agreement  by  the 
treaty,  to  consent  fully  and  freely  to  the  acquisition  of  the  property  of  the  New 
Panama  Canal  Company  by  the  United  States,  without  other  terms  or  conditions 
than  those  embodied  in  the  treaty.  It  is  not  necessary  here  to  consider  the 
questions  of  good  faith  toward  the  canal  company  which  would  be  l-aised  by  new 
exactions  of  that  company  at  this  time. 

The  foregoing  considerations,  however,  though  sufficient  in  themselves  to 
justify  my  Government  in  declining  to  recognize  any  right  in  the  Republic  to 
limit  the  consent  given  by  article  1  of  the  treaty  by  any  terms  or  conditions  of 
any  kind,  are  less  important  than  others  arising  from  the  actual  negotiations 
attending  the  making  of  the  treaty.  These  other  considerations  render  it  im- 
possible that  any  such  new  limitations  should  ever  be  considered  and  give  any 
attempt  by  Colombia  in  that  direction  the  character  of  a  serious  departure  from 
the  agreement  reached  between  the  Executive  Governments  of  the  two  nations. 

The  treaty  in  its  present  form  is  the  result  of  certain  modifications  in  the 
original  form  presented  to  Department  of  State  by  Mr.  Jose  Vicente  Concha, 
minister  plenipotentiary  of  Colombia  to  the  United  States,  on  March  31,  1902. 
This  form  of  treaty  represented  the  original  proposal  of  Colombia  to  the  United 
States,  and  was  presented  by  Mr.  Concha  shortly  after  the  recall  of  the  former 
minister,  Mr.  Martinez-Silva.  In  this  draft  the  terms  of  article  1.  by  which 
Colombia  authorizes  the  sale  of  the  New  Panama  Canal  Company  to  transfer  its 
property  to  the  United  States,  were  the  same  as  in  the  actual  treaty.  In  fact, 
this  article  has  undergone  no  change  in  any  of  the  negotiations,  and  it  now 
expresses  Colombia's  original  proposal. 

No  change  in  it  was  ever  even  suggested  by  Colombia,  in  all  the  discussions  by 
which  the  presentation  of  the  original  treaty  was  followed,  until  November  11, 
1902.  On  that  day  Mr.  Concha  submitted  to  the  Department  of  State  a  memo- 
randum of  certain  changes  which  he  desired  made  in  the  treaty  as  it  then  stood. 
In  this  memorandum  a  modification  of  article  1  was  proposed  in  the  following 
terms : 

"  This  same  article  shall  clearly  state  that  the  permission  accorded  by  Co- 
lombia to  the  canal  and  railroad  companies  to  transfer  their  rights  to  the  United 
States  shall  be  regulated  by  a  previous  special  arrangement  entered  into  by 
Colombia  with  the  said  company,  and  for  which  they  have  been  notified  that 
they  are  to  appoint  an  attorney  at  Bogota." 

To  this  proposal  the  Department  of  State  answered  that  "  the  United  States 
considers  this  suggestion  wholly  inadmissible."  The  proposition  was  then 
abandoned  by  Colombia,  and  the  treaty,  as  has  been  said,  was  signed  by  au- 
thority of  her  Government,  without  any  modification  of  the  absolute  authoriza- 
tion to  the  company  to  sell. 

It  will  thus  be  seen  that  this  proposition  to  make  Colombia's  consent  to  the 
sale  dependent  upon  an  agreement  between  that  country  and  the  canal  company 
is  not  new ;  that  it  has  already  been  made  to  my  Government  and  rejected,  and 
that  it  was  only  upon  the  abandonment  of  it  that  the  treaty  was  signed.  It  is 
impossible  that  my  Government  should  even  discuss  the  matter  any  further  or 
permit  this  rejected  and  abandoned  proposition  to  be  put  in  force  under  any 
form. 

The  argument  which  it  is  understood  has  been  advanced  by  Colombia  in  sup- 
port of  her  pretensions  upon  this  point  (that  the  concession  of  the  canal  com- 
pany, by  its  approval  by  the  Colombian  Congress,  has  become  a  law  of  Colombia 
and  must  bo  obeyed  as  it  stands  until  by  another  law  it  has  been  amended)  can 
be  allowed  no  force.  The  contract  of  concession  was  approved  by  the  Colom- 
bian Congress  in  obedience  to  the  provisions  of  Title  VI,  article  76.  of  the  con- 
stitution of  Colombia.  The  present  treaty  is  to  be  ratified  by  the  Congress  of 
Colombia  under  the  provisions  of  the  same  title  and  the  same  article  in  the 


396  DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY    OF   THE   PANAMA  CANAL. 

same  way.  If  every  force  be  allowed  to  tlie  constitution  of  Colombia  it  can  not 
be  admitted  that  the  approval  of  the  treaty  by  the  Congress  should  not  be  as 
effectual  as  approval  by  the  same  body  of  a  new  contract  between  the  company 
and  Colombia.  But  the  considerations  which  led  to  the  rejection  of  the  pro- 
posal of  the  Colombian  minister  in  his  memorandum  of  November  11,  1902,  are 
of  themselves  decisive  of  the  point. 

The  consent  of  Colombia  to  the  sale  of  The  canal  company's  property  and 
concessions  to  the  United  States  is  a  matter  of  agreement  between  the  two 
nations.  It  has  not  been  granted  by  Colombia  to  the  company  alone,  but  also 
to  the  United  States.  To  that  agreement  neither  the  canal  nor  railroad  com- 
panies are  or  can  be  a  party:  nor  can  the  United  States  permit  its  international 
compacts  to  be  dependent  in  any  degree  upon  the  action  of  any  private  cor- 
poration. Such  a  course  would  be  consistent  neither  with  the  dignity  of  either 
nation  nor  with  their  interests.  To  make  the  effectiveness  of  the  agreement 
between  Colombia  and  the  United  States  depend  upon  the  willingness  of  the 
canal  company  to  enter  into  arrangements  with  Colombia  of  a  character  sat- 
isfactory to  that  country,  would  not  only  give  that  company  an  influence  which 
it  can  never  be  permitted  to  exercise  in  the  diplomatic  affairs  and  international 
relations  of  my  country,  but  would  enable  it  to  control  the  acquisition  by  the 
United  States  of  the  rights  granted  by  Colombia  and  the  enjoyment  by  Colom- 
bia of  the  equivalent  advantages  secured  to  her  by  the  United  States. 

It  may  be  noted  further  that  such  a  course  would  practically  nullify  article  1 
of  the  treaty.  That  article  grants  an  unconditional  consent  to  the  sale.  But 
if  there  be  added  the  condition  of  an  agreement  between  Colombia  and  the 
canal  company,  this  consent  is  wholly  nugatory.  No  such  arrangement  may 
be  reached,  and  in  that 'case  article  1  of  the  treaty  would  never  practically  take 
effect.     Such  a  possibility  alone  renders  any  such  plan  impossible. 

Upon  every  ground,  therefore,  the  present  proposals  of  the  Colombian  Govern- 
ment to  make  its  consent  to  the  sale  to  the  United  States  of  the  property  and 
rights  of  the  New  Panama  Canal  Company,  contained  in  article  1  of  the  present 
treaty,  dependent  upon  arrangements  between  it  and  either  the  canal  or  railroad 
company,  is  wholly  inadmissible,  and  if  the  subject  arises  you  will  inform  that 
Government  that  the  United  States  can  approve  no  such  dealings  between  either 
of  these  companies  and  Colombia  relating  either  to  that  consent  or  the  sale. 
I  avail  myself,  etc., 

•  Signed)  A.  M.  Beaupre. 


Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

No.  45.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Bogota,  June  10,  1903. 

Sir:  Evidently  a  decided  effort  is  being  made  to  change  public 
opinion  into  a  more  favorable  consideration  of  the  canal  convention. 
Many  strong  men  are  now  supporting  it  who  but  a  short  time  ago 
were  with  the  opposition.  The  great  majority  of  people  still  con- 
tinue to  believe,  however,  that  the  convention  will  not  be  ratified. 

Mr.  Mancini,  the  local  agent  of  the  Panama  Canal  Company,  has 
informed  me  that  he  had  received  an  official  note  from  the  Colombian 
Government,  stating  that  it  did  not  think  that  the  convention  would 
be  ratified,  because  of  the  opinion  that  the  compensation  was  insuffi- 
cient, but  that  if  the  canal  company  would  pay  to  Colombia  about 
$10,000,000  ratification  could  be  secured.  Mr.  Mancini  has  notified 
his  company  of  this  note. 

Members  of  Congress  are  arriving  for  the  session  which  com- 
mences on  June  20,  instant. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

A.  M.  Beaupre. 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  397 

Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

No.  48.]  Legation  or  the  United  States, 

Bogota,  June  13,  1903. 

Sir:  Referring  to  the  department's  telegram  of  the  9th  instant, 
elsewhere  confirmed,  I  have  the  honor  to  advise  you  that  I  have  had 
an  interview  with  the  minister  for  foreign  affairs,  in  which  I  com- 
municated to  him  the  substance  of  my  instructions,  and  also  left  with 
him  a  memorandum  containing  a  substantial  copy  of  said  telegram. 

The  minister's  first  question  was  as  to  what  action  by  our  Congress 
was  contemplated — whether  it  meant  action  against  Colombia,  or  the 
adoption  of  the  Nicaragua  route — to  which  I  replied  that  I  had  re- 
ceived no  other  instructions  than  those  contained  in  the  telegram,  and 
that  I  could  not,  therefore,  aid  him  in  construing  it. 

He  said,  in  substance,  that  it  must  be  understood  that  no  matter 
what  the  Government's  actions  or  desires  may  have  been  in  the  pre- 
liminary negotiations,  a  treaty  could  not  be  made  without  the  ap- 
proval of  Congress ;  that  this  was  true  in  the  United  States  as  well  as 
Colombia ;  that  the  Colombian  Congress  was  very  soon  to  meet,  and 
that  upon  it  would  devolve  the  consideration  of  all  these  matters. 

I  replied  that  his  propositions  were  true  enough  in  the  abstract,  but 
that  in  view  of  the  facts,  as  outlined  in  the  telegram,  it  seemed  to  me 
that  it  was  incumbent  upon  the  Government  to  acquaint  the  Congress 
with  all  the  circumstances  connected  with  the  negotiations  up  to  the 
signing  of  the  convention  and  to  use  all  its  influence  to  secure  a 
ratification. 

He  said  that  he  would  lay  the  matter  before  the  Vice  President  for 
his  consideration. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

A.  M.  Beaupre. 

Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Ray. 

[Telegram.] 

United  States  Legation, 

Bogota,  June  17,  1903. 
(Received  6.10  p.  m.,  June  25.) 
June  17,  4  p.  m.     Members  of  Congress  arriving.     Opposition  to 
the  ratifications  of  the  canal  convention  is  very  strong.     Public  opin- 
ion is  that  the  convention  will  not  be  ratified. 

Beaupre. 


Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

[Telegram.] 

United  States  Legation, 

Bogota,  June  17, 1903. 
(Received  June  25,  1903,  6.15  p.  m.) 
I  can  not  obtain  from  the  Colombian  Government  withdrawal  of 
the  quarantine  at  Panama,  or  any  modification  of  orders.     The  matter 
left  to  governor  of  Panama,  with  discretionary  power. 

Beaupre. 


398  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA   CANAL. 

Mr.  Beaufrl  to  Mr.  Hay. 

Xo.  55.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Bogota,  June  20,  1903. 
Sir:  Referring  to  my  No.  48,  of  the  13th  instant,  I  have  the  honor 
to  report  that  I  have  received  from  the  minister  for  foreign  affairs  a 
counter  memorandum  relating  to  the  department's  telegram  of  the 
9th  instant,  and  to  the  Panama  Canal  negotiations. 

A  copy  and  translation  of  the  same  are  herewith  inclosed. 
I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

A.  M.  Beaupre. 


[In  closure — Translation.] 

Department  of  Foreign  Aefairs. 

Bogotd,  June  18,  1903. 

counter  memorandxtm. 

In  the  memorandum  presented  to  this  department  by  the  minister  of  the 
United  States,  personally,  on  the  13th  of  the  present  month,  he  says  he  has  re- 
ceived instructions  from  his  Government,  by  cable,  to  state  that  it  seems  that 
the  Government  of  Colombia  does  not  appreciate  the  gravity  of  the  situation; 
that  the  negotiations  for  the  opening  of  the  Panama  Canal  were  initiated  by 
Colombia,  and  energetically  pushed  during  several  years;  that  the  propositions 
presented  by  this  Republic  were  finally  accepted  with  slight  modifications; 
that  in  virtue  of  the  agreement,  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  reversed  its 
former  judgment  and  decided  for  the  Panama  route,  and  that  if  Colombia 
rejects  the  treaty  or  unduly  delays  its  ratification,  the  friendly  understanding 
between  the  two  countries  would  be  so  seriously  compromised  that  the  Con- 
gress of  the  United  States  might  take  measures  which  would  be  regretted  by 
every  friend  of  Colombia. 

This  ministry  deems  it  indispensable  to  make  the  following  observations, 
which  it  respectfully  presents  to  the  minister  for  transmission  to  his  Govern- 
ment : 

The  fact  of  Colombia  having  initiated  the  negotiations  does  not  demand  the 
approval  of  the  same  by  that  Government,  for  the  approval  of  Congress  is 
necessary  to  the  ratification  of  them,  to  which  is  given  the  constitutional  power 
of  approving  or  disapproving  the  treaties  which  the  Government  makes ;  this 
formality  was  recognized  in  the  beginning  by  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  in  the  course  of  the  negotiations,  as  is  seen  in  articles  25,  26,  and  28  of 
the  project  of  the  convention  signed  November  28,  1902. 

One  of  those  articles  (the  twenty-fifth)  says,  textually,  that  the  convention 
shall  be  ratified  at  a  time  when  it  is  approved  by  the  legislative  bodies  of  both 
countries,  and  that  condition  is  stipulated  in  articles  25  and  28  of  the  conven- 
tion signed  in  Washington  on  January  22,  1903.  the  last  of  which  articles  in  the 
part  pertaining  to  this  matter  is  as  follows: 

"The  convention,  when  signed  by  the  contracting  parties,  shall  be  ratified 
according  to  the  laws  of  the  respective  countries,  and  shall  be  exchanged  at 
Washington  within  a  term  of  eight  months  from  this  date,  or  earlier  if  possible." 

The  Government  of  the  United  States  sent  the  convention  to  the  Senate  with 
the  request  that  it  be  confirmed,  and  in  that  body  the  debate  was  so  long  and 
vehement  that  it  was  not  approved  until  in  the  following  extra  session,  and  if  it 
had  been  rejected  it  would  have  been  without  any  diminution  of  any  right  of 
Colombia,  just  as  its  rejection  here  will  be  without  any  diminution  of  any  right 
of  the  Uuited  States. 

Having  proposed  a  negotiation  does  not  necessarily  imply  that  it  is  to  be 
:ipproved,  either  in  whole  or  in  part,  by  the  legislative  body  of  the  country 
which  began  it.  Among  international  instances  which  prove  this  statement  can 
be  cited  the  instance  which  occurred  between  the  same  United  States  of  America 
and  England  over  the  projection  for  the  abrogation  of  the  Clayton-Bulwer 
treaty  of  1850,  which  project,  if  I  an;  not  badly  informed,  was  initiated  by  the 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTOKY    OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  399 

Government  of  the  United  States,  and  notwithstanding  that  the  Senate  pro- 
posed that  it  be  modified  in  the  following  terms : 

"  It  is  determined,  however,  that  none  of  the  preceding  stipulations  and 
modifications  in  paragraphs  1,  2,  3,  4,  and  5  of  this  article  (2)  shall  apply  to  the 
methods  which  the  United  States  believe  it  necessary  to  make  to  secure  with 
their  military  forces  the  defense  of  the  United  States  and  the  maintenance  of 
the  public  order." 

The  British  Government  did  not  accept  this  modification,  and  this  refusal 
deferred,  for  a  long  time,  the  approval  and  ratification  of  the  treaty. 

If  the  initiation  of  negotiations  of  a  convention  should  imply  the  correlative 
obligation  of  approval  by  the  legislative  body,  the  submitting  of  such  convention 
to  their  decision  would  be  an  illusion  (superfluous),  for  the  power  to  make 
treaties  with  foreign  powers  would  be  in  reality  vested  solely  in  the  executive 
power,  which  is  openly  contrary  to  the  spirit  and  the  letter  of  the  constitution 
of  this  Republic. 

The  Government  of  Colombia  has  given  to  the  negotiation  all  the  importance 
pertaining  thereto,  on  account  of  the  great  political  and  commercial  interests 
involved.  This  is  unmistakably  shown  in  a  note  which  the  minister  of  this 
department,  Hon.  Sr.  Paul,  sent  on  September  25,  1902,  to  the  governors  of  the 
Departments,  in  which  he  invited  them  to  discuss  and  study  with  all  freedom, 
through  the  press,  the  project  of  the  treaty  and  the  documents  which  should 
be  published,  with  the  object  that  when  Congress  should  meet  the  country 
should  be  sufficiently  instructed  in  that  which  particularly  applied  to  the  patri- 
otic interests,  and  their  representatives  in  the  legislative  bodies  could  easily 
reach  a  solution  which  would  harmonize  with  the  rights  and  benefits  of  the 
Republic. 

There  is  a,  very  notable  difference  between  some  of  the  propositions  pre- 
sented by  Colombia  and  the  respective  modifications  introduced  by  the  United 
States. 

That  difference  is  apparent  comparing  the  memorandum  presented  by  the 
Colombian  Legation  on  March  31,  1903,  with  the  proposed  bases  by  the  Secretary 
of  State,  especially  those  referring  to  the  sovereignty  of  the  zone,  judicial 
jurisdiction  in  same,  and  the  price  of  compensation  for  the  use  of  the  same  for 
the  mere  proprietorship  of  the  Panama  Railroad,  and  for  the  rent  of  $250,000 
demanded  for  the  same  railroad,  likewise  as  to  the  rights,  privileges,  and  exemp- 
tions which  she  gave.  It  is  further  to  be  observed  that  in  the  memorandum  of 
the  legation  the  establishment  of  tribunals  in  the  zone  was  not  mentioned, 
while  the  Secretary  of  State,  in  a  project  sent  with  his  note  of  November  18, 
1902,  proposed  it,  and  that  they  be  divided  into  three  classes,  Colombians, 
Americans,  and  mixed ;  as  also  in  the  Colombian  memorandum,  a  sum  of 
$7,000,000  American  gold  was  asked  and  an  annual  sum  which  was  to  be  de- 
termined as  a  price  for  the  enjoyment  of  the  railroad  and  fee  for  use  of  the 
zone,  and  in  attention  to  other  circumstances.  The  Secretary  of  State  only 
offered  a  sum  of  $7,000,000  and  an  annual  rent  of  $100,000,  or,  if  preferred,  a 
sum  of  $10,000,000  and  an  annual  rent  of  $10,000.  The  Government  ordered 
the  legation  to  ask  a  sum  of  $10,000,000  and  an  annuity  of  $600,000.  The 
Secretary  of  State,  in  a  note  which  had  the  form  of  an  ultimatum,  reduced  the 
rent  of  $250,000.  The  diminution  of  $350,000  in  a  period  of  only  one  hundred 
years  represents  a  difference  of  $'!5,000,000,  and  as  the  convention  will  probably 
last  more  than  a  century,  it  is  clear  that  the  difference  is  no  light  matter,  but 
of  much  consideration. 

It  is  also  well  to  make  known  here  what  was  a  motive  of  substantial  differ- 
ence, that  the  canal  and  railroad  companies  can  not  transfer  their  privileges 
without  the  authority  of  the  Colombian  Government  and  without  arrangement 
of  their  pending  business. 

The  broad  manner  in  which  the  Government  of  the  United  States  has  inter- 
preted the  stipulation  of  the  projected  convention  in  this  respect  has  caused 
the  refusal  of  the  companies  to  enter  into  arrangements  which  ought  to  precede 
the  ratification  and  exchange,  among  others,  that  relative  to  the  shares  which 
Colombia  has  in  the  capital  of  the  New  Panama  Canal  Company,  a  refusal 
which  makes  difficult  the  legislative  approval  of  the  pact.  This  ministry  had 
not  known  that  the  United  States  revoked  any  law  in  order  to  make  possible 
the  treaty  with  Colombia.  The  Government  of  the  Republic  ordered  its  repre- 
sentative in  Washington  to  sign  the  pact  in  the  belief  that,  in  conformity  with 
article  4  of  the  law  approved  June  28,  1902  (Spooner  bill),  if  the  Government 
of  the  United  States  could  not  obtain  from  the  Government  of  Colombia  do- 
minion over  the  necessary  territory  for  the  work,  nor  the  rights  mentioned  in 


400  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA  CANAL. 

articles  1  and  2  of  the  said  law,  nor  a  satisfactory  title  to  the  properties  of 
the  New  Panama  Canal  Company,  the  President  of  the  United  States,  by 
medium  of  the  Isthmian  Canal  Commission,  would  dig  and  construct  a  canal 
for  boats  by  the  Nicaragua  route.  In  consequence  the  Government  of  Colombia, 
which  has  held  in  view  of  this  law  that  the  base  of  the  treaty  on  the  part  of 
the  United  States  is  according  as  it  has  been  expressed  in  the  introduction 
accompanying  the  treaty,  has  derived  the  correct  conclusion  that  the  only  result 
that  can  affect  adversely  the  interests  of  this  nation,  if  their  Congress  should 
reject  the  project  of  the  treaty,  is  that  the  Government  of  the  United  States 
will  cease  negotiations  and  adopt  the  Nicaragua  route  for  the  construction  of 
the  canal. 

When  is  there  such  an  undue  delay  in  the  ratification  of  a  treaty  which  will 
tend  to  cause  a  serious  compromise  in  the  friendly  relations  with  the  contracting 
party? 

In  this  country  there  would  be  an  undue  delay  if,  the  ratification  having  been 
ordered  by  the  law,  the  executive  power  should  show  a  disposition  to  disregard 
it  with  the  evident  purpose  of  causing  injury  to  his  own  country  or  the  other 
nation  interested  in  the  pact. 

But  as  has  already  been  expressed,  the  previous  requisite  of  legislative  ap- 
proval is  indispensable  for  the  exchange  of  ratifications,  and  before  this  is  done 
the  treaty  is  but  a  project  which,  according  to  the  law  of  nations,  has  no  rights 
or  obligations,  and  for  the  same  reason,  according  to  that  law,  to  reject  or  delay 
its  ratification  is  not  cause  for  the  adoption  of  measures  tending  to  alter  the 
friendly  relations  between  the  two  countries.  \/If  such  were  the  case  the  pre- 
paring of  the  pact  would  be  the  occasion  of  a  serious  danger  instead  of  an 
element  of  peace  and  progress,  of  which  Colombia  has  no  fear  in  that  the 
political  relations  of  the  great  Republic,  which  offered  the  blood  of  its  sons  to 
liberate  Cuba,  and  after  having  stopped  the  disintegration  of  Venezuela,  as  a 
result  of  their  boundary  dispute  with  Great  Britain,  deeds  which  have  been 
made  notorious  before  the  world,  in  most  solemn  manner,  as  showing  their  de- 
termination to  procure  and  preserve  the  independence,  sovereignty,  and  integ- 
rity of  the  American  nations. 

If  the  Congress,  using  its  inherent  prerogative  of  national  sovereignty,  re- 
jects the  pact  in  question  because,  in  their  judgment  it  is  not  for  the  benefit  of 
the  Republic,  it  will  be,  I  am  sure,  with  much  regret  that  it  can  not  comply 
with  the  desires  of  the  Government  and  the  Congress  of  the  United  States;  but 
feeling  confident  for  reasons  of  justice  that  by  this  act  it  will  not  have  altered 
in  any  particular  the  friendly  relations  which  fortunately  exist  between  the  two 
Republics,  and  to  the  preservation  of  which  Colombia  attaches  the  highest 
importance. 


The  Minister : 


(Signed)  Luis  Carlos  Rico. 


Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

No.  56.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Bogota,  June  20,  1903. 
Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  confirm  my  telegram  of  this  date,  which 
should  read  as  follows : 

June  20,  5  p.  m.  Extra  session  of  Congress  convened  to-day.  Joaquin  Velez, 
president  of  the  Senate;  Jose  Medina  Calder6n,  president  of  the  Chamber  of 
Representatives.  The  President's  message  deals  with  canal  convention  as  fol- 
lows :  "  To  my  Government  has  been  presented  this  dilemma ;  either  it  lets  our 
sovereignty  suffer  detriment  or  renounces  certain  pecuniary  advantages,  to 
which,  according  to  the  opinion  of  many,  we  have  a  right.  In  the  first  case, 
to  consent  to  the  sacrifice  of  our  sovereignty  and  not  aspiring  to  great  indemni- 
fication, the  just  wishes  of  the  inhabitants  of  Panama  and  other  Colombians 
would  be  satisfied  if  the  canal  were  opened,  but  the  Government  would  be  ex- 
posed to  the  charge  afterwards  that  it  did  not  defend  our  sovereignty  and  that 
it  did  not  defend  the  interests  of  the  nation.  In  the  second  case,  if  the  canal 
is  not  opened  by  Panama  the  Government  will  be  accused  for  not  having  allowed 
Colombia  that  benefit  which  is  regarded  as  the  commencement  of  our  aggran- 
dizement. I  have  already  allowed  my  wish  to  be  understood  that  the  canal 
should  be  opened  through  our  territory.     I  believe  that  even  at  the  cost  of 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  401 

sacrifices  we  ought  not  to  put  obstacles  to  such  a  grand  undertaking,  because  it 
is  an  immensely  beneficial  enterprise  for  the  country,  and  also  because  once  the 
canal  is  opened  by  the  United  States  our  relations  will  become  more  intimate 
and  extensive,  while  our  industries,  commerce,  and  our  wealth  will  gain  in- 
calculably. I  leave  the  full  responsibility  the  decision  of  this  matter  brings 
with  Congress.  I  do  not  pretend  to  make  my  opinion  weigh.  When  I  have 
given  instructions  to  our  representative  in  Washington  it  has  been  coupled 
with  the  order  that  the  decision  of  this  important  matter  must  be  left  with  Con- 
gress. After  years  in  which  the  question  has  been  treated  in  a  vague  way, 
without  precise  conditions,  it  is  now  presented  in  a  way  to  obtain  practical  and 
positive  results.  It  has  been  our  indisputable  diplomatic  triumph  that  the 
Senate  and  Government  of  the  United  States  should  declare,  notwithstanding 
every  effort  to  the  contrary,  the  superiority  of  the  Colombian  route." 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

A.  M.  Beaupre. 


Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Flay. 

No.  57.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Bogota,  June  20,  1903. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  report  that  the  National  Congress  met  in 
extra  session  on  Saturday,  the  20th  instant,  at  1  o'clock  p.  m. 

In  the  Senate  Gen.  Joaquin  F.  Velez  was  elected  president;  Dr. 
Antonio  Gomez  Restrepo,  first  vice-president;  Luis  A.  Mesa,  second 
vice-president,  and  Miguel  A.  Peharredonda,  secretary. 

In  the  Chamber  of  Eepresentatives  Jose  Medina  Calderon  was 
elected  president ;  Carlos  Matamoras,  first  vice-president ;  Guillernas 
Valencia,  second  vice-president;  Dr.  Fernando  Restrepro  Briceno, 
secretary. 

There  was  not  a  full  attendance,  but  sufficient  for  a  quorum  in  each 
house. 

As  I  have  heretofore  predicted,  there  is  a  full  and  ample  majority 
of  the  friends  of  the  Government  in  both  houses  of  Congress,  and 
such  legislation  as  the  Government  may  seriously  desire  will  be 
enacted. 

Under  the  laws  the  officers  are  elected  for  one  month,  and  as  Gen- 
eral Velez,  the  president  of  the  Senate,  is  one  of  the  most  vehement 
and  outspoken  of  the  enemies  of  the  canal  convention,  I  take  it  that 
there  will  be  no  canal  legislation  undertaken  during  the  first  month 
of  Congress. 

It  is  understood  that  to-morrow  a  special  message  will  be  sent  to 
the  Senate  upon  the  canal  matter,  but  that  the  session  will  be  a 
secret  one. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

A.  M.  Beaupre. 


Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

[Telegram.] 

United  States  Legation, 
Bogota,  June  23,  1903.     (Received  June  27,  1903.) 
Confidential.     Friends  of  the  Government  have  control  in  Con- 
gress.   I  believe  any  legislation  seriously  desired  by  the  Government 
will  pass. 

Beaupre. 
42112— S.  Doc.  474,  63-2 26 


402  DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

[Telegram.] 

United  States  Legation, 
Bogota,  June  23,  1903.     (Received  June  27,  1903.) 
Opposition  Chamber  of  Representatives  opened  canal  discussion 
yesterday  demanding  documents  relating  to  the  treaty.    The  Govern- 
ment objected  because  it  was  not  ready  to  present  the  treaty.    The 
Government  was  sustained ;  vote  38  to  5. 

Beaupre. 


Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

[Telegram.] 

United  States  Legation, 

Bogota,  June  26,  1903. 
Confidential.  Am  informed  that  the  treaty  will  not  be  presented 
until  the  President  is  confident  it  will  be  confirmed.  Chamber  of 
Representatives  is  favorable,  but  unfriendly  influence  makes  the 
majority  in  the  Senate  uncertain.  Absentees  have  been  sent  for  and 
the  Government  using  influence  on  Senators  here.  Do  you  desire  me 
to  telegraph  such  information? 

Beaupre. 


Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

No.  67.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Bogota,  July  1,  1903. 
Sir  :  Referring  to  the  Department's  No.  6  of  April  28,  1903,  and  to 
my  No.  44  of  June  10,  1903,  concerning  the  request  of  the  Colombian 
Government  to  the  Panama  Canal  and  Railroad  companies  for  the 
appointment  of  agents  to  negotiate  the  cancellation  of  present  con- 
cessions, etc.,  I  have  the  honor  to  report  that  on  yesterday  I  received 
a  note  from  the  minister  for  foreign  affairs  in  reply  to  mine  of  the 
10th  ultimo,  a  copy  and  translation  of  which  I  herewith  transmit. 
I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

A.  M.  Beaupre. 


Ministry  foe  Foreign  Rki..ytions, 

Bogot&,  June  27,  1008. 

Mr.  Minister:  I  have  the  honor  to  receive  the  attentive  note  which  your 
excellency  has  heen  pleased  to  address  to  rue  on  the  10th  of  the  present  month, 
with  the  English  version  of  the  notes  in  which  the  minister  of  hacienda  of 
Colombia  requested  the  railroad  company  aud  the  New  Panama  Canal  Company 
to  name  agents  to  represent  them  in  the  negotiations  relative  to  the  permission 
which  is  necessary  for  the  transfer  of  their  respective  concessions  to  the  Gov- 
ernment of  the  United  States. 

The  Congress  being  in  session,  to  which  belongs  the  decision  as  to  the  appro- 
bation of  the  treaty  between  the  Republic  of  Columbia  aud  the  United  States 
for  the  construction  of  the  interoceanic  canal  between  the  Atlantic  and  Pacific 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  403 

Oceans,  the  said  note  of  your  excellency  will  be  presented  to  that  body  to  the 
end  that  they  may  know  the  construction  that  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  gives  to  article  1  of  that  compact. 

The  Congress  of  Colombia  in  determining  the  meaning,  and,  at  the  same  time, 
the  scope  of  article  1  of  the  treaty,  will  have  to  consult  the  antecedents  of  the 
negotiations,  among  which  are  found  the  said  notes  of  the  minister  of  hacienda, 
which  have  the  dates  25th  and  27th  of  December,  1902,  respectively,  while  the 
treaty  for  the  opening  of  the  interoceanic  canal  was  signed  January  22,  1903 ; 
for  this  reason  they  were  not  interpretations  of  the  pact,  but  they  were  destined 
to  prevent  certain  foreseen  eventualities  in  the  course  of  the  negotiations,  as  is 
seen  in  that  which  the  minister  of  Colombia  expressed  in  his  memorial  ad- 
dressed to  the  Secretary  of  State  in  Washington  the  22d  of  November,  1902. 

In  paragraph  b,  section  A,  it  says  • 

"  The  preceding  reasons  serve  in  part  also  to  show  the  necessity  which  exists 
that  the  Government  of  Colombia  celebrate  a  special  contract  with  the  com- 
panies which  are  to  cede  their  rights;"  but  to  this  must  be  added  that  the 
treaty  alone  between  Colombia  and  the  United  States  can  not  have  the  judicial 
effect  of  resolving  or  canceling  the  legal  bonds  which  exist  between  the  Republic 
of  Colombia  and  those  companies,  bonds  arising  from  a  perfect  contract  which 
can  not  be  dissolved,  in  conformity  with  the  principles  of  universal  juris- 
prudence, because  one  of  the  parties  celebrates  a  compact,  on  the  same  material, 
with  a  third,  which  in  this  case  would  be  the  United  States. 

As  in  the  same  way  the  United  States  must  celebrate  a  contract  in  order  to 
acquire  the  rights  of  the  said  companies,  and  that  negotiation  can  not  be  in- 
cluded in  the  treaty  which  is  to  be  celebrated  between  the  two  countries,  neither 
can  the  resolution  of  the  obligation  between  Colombia  and  the  two  companies 
be  verified  in  the  treaty. 

If  such  were  admitted,  it  would  result  that  Colombia,  relinquishing  all  her 
rights  in  relation  with  these  entities  (corporations?),  or  depriving  herself  of 
the  means  to  make  them  effective,  would  leave  in  force  her  obligations  to  them. 
The  very  payment  of  the  privileged  shares  which  Colombia  possesses  in  the 
canal  company  would  not  have  any  guarantee  by  the  omission  of  a  special  con- 
tract, so  much  the  more  so  that  in  the  proposed  reform  by  the  Department  of 
State  to  article  1  of  the  memorandum  of  April,  it  was  clearly  expressed  that  the 
United  States  would  not  contract  any  obligation  in  that  respect  ("no  obligation 
under  this  provision  is  imposed  upon  or  assumed  by  the  United  States"). 

The  affirmations  of  your  excellency  as  to  the  legality  of  the  sale  to  a  foreign 
government  of  the  shares  of  the  Panama  Railway  and  by  that  manner  to  trans- 
fer the  control  of  the  work,  imposes  upon  me  the  duty  to  call  your  excellency's 
attention  to  a  very  important  circumstance,  in  that  the  necessity  for  the  consent 
of  Colombia  to  that  sale  is  recognized  in  article  1  of  the  treaty,  and  to  manifest 
to  your  excellency  that  each  share,  by  representing  a  certain  proportionate 
value  of  the  privilege,  or,  that  is,  of  the  railroad  itself,  and  the  transfer  of  that 
to  a  foreign  government  being  prohibited,  the  shares  can  not  be  sold,  because 
with  them  they  would  become  copartners  in  the  property  of  the  privilege,  which 
is  judicially  inadmissible. 

The  restrictive  condition  of  the  contracts  of  1850  and  1867  do  not  exclude 
from  the  penalty  of  forfeiture  the  sale  of  portions  of  the  privilege. 

This  is  indivisible  as  to  the  rights  conceded  and  the  obligations  imposed,  and 
if  it  were  not  so  the  result  would  be  that  if  a  foreign  government  bought  the 
total  or  a  greater  part  of  the  shares,  it  would  become,  by  this  means,  proprietor 
of  the  railroad,  or  at  least  of  a  part  so  great  of  its  value  that  it  would  give  to 
it  the  administration  of  the  work,  and  in  this  way  the  prohibition  of  the  sale  of 
the  privilege  to  a  foreign  government  would  be  eluded. 

Your  excellency  knows  very  well  that  any  interpretation  ought  to  be  discarded 
that  makes  illusionary  that  which  is  stipulated,  and  in  this  case  the  condition 
in  reference  would  be  reached  if  any  proceeding  was  admitted  by  which  the 
privilege  for  the  construction  and  exploitation  of  the  railroad  could  be  trans- 
ferred to  a  foreign  government. 
I  avail  myself,  etc., 

(Signed)  Litis  Carlos  Rico. 

To  His  Excellency,  Hon.  A.  M.  Beaupr£, 

Minister  Plenipotentiary  of  the  United  States,  etc. 


404  DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

Mr.  Loomis  to  Mr.  Beaupre. 

[Telegram.] 

Department  of  State, 
Washington,  July  1, 1903. 
Have  you  fully  acquainted  Colombian  Government  with  Depart- 
ment instruction  of  April  28  ?     Keep  department  informed  as  to 
situation. 

Loomis,  Acting. 

Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

No.  68.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Bogota,  July  2,  1903. 
Sir  :  I  have  the  honor  to  confirm  my  telegram  of  this  date,  which 
should  read  as  follows : 

"  July  2,  9  a.  m.  Confidential.  Have  received  information,  pri- 
vately, that  the  President  had  a  meeting  of  senators  at  the  palace 
yesterday,  urging  the  necessity  of  the  ratification  of  the  treaty. 
Heated  discussion  ensued,  the  majority  declaring  in  opposition  to 
the  treaty.  At  present  the  majority  in  the  Senate  seem  against 
ratification.1' 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

A.  M.  Beaupre. 


Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

|  Telegram.] 

United  States  Legation, 
Bogota,  July  5,  1903.     (Eeceived  July  0.) 

I  have  fully  acquainted  Colombian  Government  with  your  instruc- 
tions of  April  28.  The  reply  of  ministry  for  foreign  affairs  I  have 
the  honor  to  transmit.    Summary  of  reply  as  follows : 

My  note  will  be  referred  to  Congress  that  it  may  know  the  con- 
struction given  article  1  by  the  Government  of  the  United  States.  To 
determine  meaning  article  1  Congress  will  take  into  consideration  all 
negotiations  prior  to  signing  the  treaty,  including  the  notices  min- 
ister hacienda  to  companies,  which,  antedating  the  treaty,  are  not 
explanatory  thereof,  intended  in  anticipation  of  foreseen  events  in 
the  negotiations.  See  paragraph  B,  section  A,  memorial  Colombian 
minister  to  the  Department,  22d  last  November.  The  treaty  alone 
can  not  cancel  obligations  between  Colombia  and  companies  as  well. 
The  United  States  must  make  contract  to  acquire  rights  of  the  com- 
panies which  can  not  be  included  in  the  treaty.  Were  this  not  so 
Colombia,  while  relinquishing  her  rights,  would  yet  be  bound  by 
obligations  to  companies.  To  omit  contract  Colombia  would  have 
no  guarantee  for  the  payment  of  her  shares  in  canal  company, 
especially  as  in  article  1  of  the  memorandum  of  April  obligation 
of  this  kind  is  waived  by  the  United  States.  Necessity  for  consent 
of  Colombia  to  sale  of  shares  Panama  Railway  recognized  in  article 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  405 

1  the  treaty.  The  minister  affirms  the  prohibition  extends  to  pur- 
chase of  one  or  more  shares,  as  by  this  means  control  could  be  se- 
cured and  the  prohibition  eluded. 

Beaupre. 

Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

[Telegram.] 

United  States  Legation. 
Bogota,  July  5, 1903.  (Received  July  12,  1903.) 
Confidential.  Have  received  information  privately  that  a  para- 
phrase of  your  cipher  telegram  June  9  was  read  in  the  Senate  secret- 
session.  Created  sensation.  Construed  by  many  as  a  threat  of  direct 
retaliation  against  Colombia  in  case  the  treaty  is  not  ratified.  This, 
and  the  statement  of  just-arrived  members  of  Congress  from  Panama 
that  this  department  would  revolt  if  the  treaty  is  not  ratified,  caused 
alarm,  and  the  effect  is  favorable.  Unusual  honors  extended  legation 
of  the  United  States  4th  of  July. 

Beaupre. 


Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

No.  72.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Bogota,  July  6,  1903. 

Sir  :  Referring  to  my  No.  60  of  June  24,  1903,  with  which  I  trans- 
mitted a  copy  of  the  President's  message  to  Congress,  I  now  have 
the  honor  to  inclose  herewith  a  translation  of  said  message. 
I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

A.  M.  Beaupre. 
Honorable  Senators  and  Representatives : 

Full  of  joy  and  smiling  hopes  I  see  to-day  fulfilled  the  greatest  of  my  desires 
in  that  I  see  reunited  the  National  Congress.  The  afflicted  country  hopes, 
through  your  intelligence  and  your  love  of  it,  a  remedy  for  the  ills  which  op- 
press it.  And  I  hope  to  see  myself,  for  the  greater  part,  relieved  of  the  im- 
mense responsibility  which  has  weighed  over  me,  that  of  caring  personally  for 
the  salvation  of  the  institutions  and  the  administration  of  the  public  business, 
by  the  meeting  of  the  legislators. 

The  profound  disturbance  of  the  public  order,  which  began  in  1S99,  prevented 
the  fulfillment  of  the  laws  in  regard  to  elections,  and  consequently  the  reunion 
of  Congress,  which  ought  to  have  taken  place  in  1900  and  1902. 

Therefore  there  arose  a  political  situation  unforeseen  by  the  constitution  and 
the  law,  in  that  the  Government  was  forced  to  assume  the  functions  of  legisla- 
tion as  well  as  to  protect  itself  against  those  who  sought  to  destroy  it  by  force, 
and  to  attend  to  the  satisfaction  of  many  necessities  of  all  classes. 

One  of  these  necessities  was  that  the  National  Congress  should  be  formed 
and  reunited,  but  this  could  not  be  attended  to  during  the  war,  because  many  of 
the  cities  of  the  Republic  were  occupied,  either  continuously  or  for  short  times, 
by  the  forces  of  the  rebels,  and  on  this  account  the  legal  authorities  could  not 
reside  in  them  nor  exercise  their  proper  functions. 

I  was  authorized  to  call  Congress  in  extraordinary  session,  but  I  could  not 
have  an  election  for  members  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  nor  was  there 
a  complete  number  of  senators.  Such  being  the  circumstances,  I  resolved  that 
as  soon  as  the  battles  had  ceased  or  been  made  insignificant  I  would  see  that 
an  election  was  held  for  members  of  the  departmental  assemblies  and  for  repre- 
sentatives, designating  for  each  one  of  the  acts  prescribed  by  the  election  laws 
a  different  date  from  the  one  fixed  by  them. 

In  doing  this  I  was  moved  by  the  fact  that  the  Congress  would  owe  its 
existence  to  this  and  would  not  fail  to  approve  it,  and  also  that  the  question  of 


406  DIPLOMATIC  HISTORY   OF   THE  PANAMA  CANAL. 

the  opening  of  an  interoceanic  caual  by  way  of  Panama  demanded  a  more 
prompt  solution  than  could  be  given  by  the  Congress  which  ought  to  reunite  on 
the  20th  of  July,  1904.  For  in  this  light  it  was  possible  that  the  deferring  of 
the  solution  which  the  Government  of  the  United  States  hoped  from  Colombia 
would  be  equivalent  to  a  definite  renunciation  of  the  project  of  the  contract. 

Neither  could  I  refuse  to  call  Congress,  having  offered  on  various  solemn 
occasions  and  in  important  documents,  and  having  contracted  to  do  so  in  my 
name,  by  agents  as  authorized  and  as  respectable  as  those  who  signed  the  sur- 
renders at  the  end  of  the  war. 

At  the  same  time  that  I  have  hoped  that  the  legislature,  in  the  session  of  this 
year,  would  solve  that  question,  I  have  desired  and  hoped  also  that  it  would 
solve  others  of  supreme  importance,  and  that  it  would  take  measures  to  remedy 
the  infinite  evils  caused  by  the  late  war,  and  prepare  and  open  for  Colombia  an 
era  of  greatness,  prosperity,  and  peace. 

The  constitution,  which  authorized  me  to  take  measures  which  in  time  of 
peace  could  not  have  been  exercised  without  consent  of  Congress,  imposes  on 
those  governing  the  duty  to  give  to  that  body,  peace  being  declared,  a  reason- 
able account  of  the  acts  executed  in  the  exercise  of  those  extraordinary  powers. 
This  account  ought  to  be  prepared  and  completed  in  the  forms  which,  according 
to  the  constitution,  the  ministers  of  Government  have  to  give  to  Congress  in 
their  ordinary  sessions.  The  ministers  of  my  Government  have  made  efforts 
to  have  ready  the  said  reports,  but  they  have  only  been  able  to  prepare  the 
main  proofs,  and  at  present  it  is  impossible  to  make  it  complete.  The  disorder 
in  which,  on  account  of  the  last  revolution,  the  public  administration  of  all 
branches  have  been  thrown  for  the  last  three  years,  and  the  lack  of  communi- 
cations which  in  all  that  time  was  almost  total  and  which  is  still  so,  have 
made  and  now  make  it  impossible  to  collect  the  necessary  data  which  have  to 
be  gotten  in  all  the  offices  of  the  Republic — data  which  can  not,  without  great 
labor,  be  collected  before  July  of  next  year. 

The  ministers  of  Government  will  give  you  all  the  information  necessary  for 
the  study  and  investigation  of  these  points,  and  which  they  have  acquired 
in  many  cases  not  without  great  study  of  these  same  questions  and  great 
difficulty. 

A  continuation  of  this  message  would  require  the  placing  therein  the  data 
of  the  ministers,  data  which  I  have  not  cared  to  include  in  this  document, 
because  they  would  give  to  it  excessive  length. 

The  ministers  will  submit  to  you  for  your  consideration  the  businesses  for 
which  it  is  urgent  that  you  provide  legislation. 

In  my  proclamation  addressed  to  my  fellow  citizens  on  the  1st  of  January 
of  this  year  I  set  forth  most  of  the  views  that  I  should  state  now.  Allow  me 
to  transcribe  here  some  fragments  of  that  document. 

[Note. — This  message  of  the  vice  president  to  the  nation  I  will  give  a  sum- 
mary of  rather  than  a  translation.] 

Doctor  Marroquiu  begins  by  congratulating  the  country  on  the  conclusion 
of  peace,  which  is  owing,  he  says,  to  the  unselfish  patriotism  of  so  many  Colom- 
bians who  gratuitously  lent  their  services.  He  refers  to  the  revolution  which 
broke  out  in  1S99  as  being  the  severest  which  this  country  has  yet  experienced, 
owing  to  the  dissensions  among  the  members  of  the  Conservative  Party ;  the 
open  support  given  by  foreigners;  secret  machinations  in  the  countries  of 
Europe  and  America  with  the  object  of  impeding  the  acquisition  of  munitions 
of  war;  of  a  foreign  press  placed  at  the  service  of  the  disturbers  of  order; 
and  sickness,  the  child  of  war,  which,  ravaging  entire  army  corps,  has  frus- 
trated plans  and  embarassed  operations.  The  result  has  been  to  bring  about 
immense  suffering,  and  to  place  the  finances  of  the  country,  which  were  already 
in  a  bad  condition,  in  the  most  critical  situation  the  country  has  ever  known. 
At  the  same  time  a  spirit  of  speculation  has  been  rife,  and  unfortunately  many 
of  those  who  ought  to  have  done  their  utmost  to  bring  about  a  restoration  of 
peace  have  for  this  very  reason  desired  the  continuance  of  hostilities. 

After  enumerating  the  many  evils  which  the  country  has  suffered,  he  refers 
to  the  interoceanic  canal,  on  the  results  of  which  undertaking  he  builds  his 
hopes  for  future  prosperity.  He  justifies  the  arbitrary  action  of  the  execu- 
tive power  by  the  results,  i.  e.,  by  an  honorable  peace.  The  war  has  had  this 
advantage,  that  it  has  taught  the  people,  to  their  cost,  the  blessings  inseparable 
from  peace.  He  desires  henceforth  to  rule  as  the  chief  not  of  a  party  but  of 
the  entire  nation.  His  excellency  then  goes  on  to  the  policy  to  be  adopted  in 
the  future.  He  frankly  acknowledges  the  errors  committed  in  the  past,  which 
were  the  cause  of  continuous  revolutions.     Colombians  must  set  out  to  work, 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA  CANAL.  407 

each  iii  their  own  particular  sphere.  It  must  be  work  and  not  politics.  Poli- 
tics, as  this  country  has  up  to  now  considered  the  term,  has  nothing  less  than 
the  furthering  of  personal  interests  at  the  expense  of  the  public  welfare.  He 
refers  with  satisfaction  to  the  approaching  elections,  to  the  fact  that  this 
country  will  henceforth  be  ruled  by  a  constitutional  government.  Attention 
must  be  directed  toward  the  improvement  of  the  means  of  communication,  and 
he  trusts  that  this  is  a  matter  which  will  be  seriously  considered  by  the  legisla- 
tive chambers.  The  questions  between  this  and  other  countries  he  expresses 
himself  willing  to  settle  and  refers  favorably  to  recourse  to  arbitration.  He 
sympathizes  with  the  troubles  of  his  sister  country,  Venezuela,  but  states  at 
the  same  time  that  such  troubles  are  the  action  of  a  short-sighted  government 
which  does  not  know  how  to  respect  the  rights  of  others.  He  speaks  passingly 
of  the  troubles  between  Colombia  and  Venezuela,  but  the  solution  of  such 
differences  lies  in  the  railway.  Better  communications  will  lead  to  better 
knowledge  of  neighboring  States,  and  smooth  all  disagreements.  Also,  when 
this  country  is  networked  with  railroads  the  energy  of  a  large  part  of  the 
population,  which  is  at  present  expended  in  fomenting  discord,  will  be  turned 
into  channels  more  profitable  to  themselves  and  to  the  country. 

The  Vice  President  then  turns  to  the  financial  situation.  He  states  frankly 
that,  the  Government  will  have  to  continue  as  before,  having  recourse  to  emis- 
sions of  paper  money.  The  solution  of  the  economic  question  lies  in  the 
gradual  enrichment  of  the  country.  Every  facility  must  be  given  to  exports, 
so  that  in  time  their  value  shall  exceed  that  of  imports.  Industry  must  be 
encouraged,  so  as  to  lessen  the  necessity  of  importing  articles  from  abroad. 
To  further  this  it  will  be  necessary  to  push  with  all  energy  the  construction 
of  railways,  which,  he  says,  have  under  similar  circumstances  been  the  salva- 
tion of  Chile,  the  Argentine  Republic,  and  Mexico.  Then  there  comes  the 
question  of  revenues,  which  have  become  completely  disorganized.  Fresh  taxes 
will  have  to  be  imposed,  which  he  trusts  the  country  will  pay  with  good  will. 
With  the  adoption  of  these  measures  the  economic  problem  will  resolve  itself 
and  the  paper  money  will  obtain  its  normal  value,  i.  e.,  it  will  be  at  par  with 
silver.  This  is  the  only  solution,  which  can  be  attained  neither  by  theories 
nor  original  plans  of  economists,  nor  laws,  decrees,  nor  foreign  loans.  He  con- 
gratulates himself  that  all  his  efforts  to  obtain  a  loan  abroad  have  resulted  in 
failure,  as  now  none  of  the  revenues  of  the  country  are  burdened.  He  regrets 
being  able  to  present  no  more  prompt  plan  for  remedying  the  financial  situa- 
tion. 

With  regard  to  the  question  of  the  completion  of  the  interoceanic  canal,  the 
Vice  President  says  as  follows : 

"  Incidentally  at  the  beginning  of  this  address  I  touched  on  the  question  of 
the  opening  of  the  interoceanic  canal.  I  feel  it,  however,  my  duty  to  explain  to 
you  more  fully  the  opinion  of  the  Government  on  this  important  matter.  My 
Government  is  faced  with  this  dilemma :  We  must  either  allow  our  sovereign 
rights  to  suffer  and  renounce  certain  pecuniary  advantages  to  which,  as  many 
opine,  we  have  a  right,  or  we  must  rigorously  stand  up  for  our  sovereign  rights 
and  claim  peremptorily  the  pecuniary  indemnization  to  which  we  have  a  right 
to  consider  ourselves  entitled.  In  the  first  case — that  is,  should  we  consent  to 
the  curtailment  of  our  sovereignty  and  not  aspire  to  the  full  indemnity,  should 
the  canal  be  opened  through  Panama,  the  just  wishes  of  the  inhabitants  of  that 
department  and  of  all  Colombians  will  be  satisfied ;  but  the  Government  lays 
itself  open  to  being  charged  in  the  future  with  not  having  duly  defended  our 
sovereignty  and  with  having  sacrificed  the  interests  of  the  nation.  In  the  sec- 
ond case,  should  the  canal  not  be  opened  through  Panama  it  will  be  laid  to  the 
charge  of  the  Government  that  it  did  not  allow  Colombia  to  benefit  by  this 
undertaking  which  is  regarded  as  the  foundation  of  our  future  greatness.  I 
have  already  expressed  my  desire  that  the  interoceanic  canal  should  be  opened 
through  our  territory.  I  think  that  even  at  the  cost  of  making  sacrifices,  we 
should  put  no  obstacle  in  the  way  of  so  great  an  undertaking,  for  it  means  an 
enormous  material  improvement  for  our  country,  and,  should  the  canal  once  be 
opened  by  the  people  of  the  United  States,  our  relations  with  that  people  would 
be  drawn  closer.  The  result  would  be  an  incalculable  gain  to  our  industry,  our 
commerce,  and  our  wealth.  Happily  for  me,  the  immense  responsibility  of 
coming  to  a  decision  falls  to  Congress.  That  is  the  body  which  has  to  give  its 
approbation  or  disapprobation  of  the  agreement  proposed  by  the  Government 
of  the  United  States." 

The  vice-president,  at  the  conclusion  of  his  address,  expresses  his  regret  at 
not  being  able  to  place  a  more  cheering  outlook  before  the  country,  but  it  is  as 


408  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA   CANAL. 

well  it  should  realize  the  difficulties  which  the  people  will  have  to  aid  him  to 
overcome. 

More  than  once  I  have  solemnly  promised  to  lay  again  before  Congress  the 
message  that  I  addressed  in  1898  about  reforms.  Some  of  said  reforms  were 
passed  that  year.  Such  as  were  neither  considered  nor  embodied  in  our  legis- 
lation I  now  submit  to  your  consideration,  recommending  them  as  proper  in 
their  nature  and  conducive  to  the  very  material  and  paramount  purpose  of 
conciliating  (he  aspirations  of  our  political  parties,  thus  arriving  at  an  accord 
among  the  Colombians  and  assuring  that  tranquility  which  more  than  ever  is 
necessary  under  the  circumstances. 

A  printed  copy  of  the  above-mentioned  message  will  be  presented  to  you. 

At  the  beginning  of  this  year  I  asserted  that,  owing  to  the  action  taken  by 
the  Government,  the  effects  of  peace  had  commenced  to  be  appreciated.  With 
stronger  reason  can  I  assure  it  to-day.  It  was  feared  that  to  the  disarmament 
of  the  enemies  of  the  Government,  vengeance  and  brutal  violence  would  ensue; 
but  owing  to  the  Christian  feelings  that  still  animate  our  people,  we  had  not 
seen  such  horrors  realized.  Industrial  and  mercantile  movement  has  revived 
in  every  visible  way,  and  in  every  quarter  of  the  nation  we  can  see  such  as 
were  yesterday  fetching  their  gain  through  violence  and  depredation  devoted  to 
their  usual  occupations.  Let  this  consoling  spectacle  be  a  lesson  to  the 
Colombians  and  make  them  understood  how  great  the  power  of  peace  is,  and 
how  much  we  should  expect  when  it  is  solid  and  lasting. 

But  if  private  individuals  have  begun  to  enjoy  that  supreme  and  long-wished- 
for  benefit;  if  their  enterprises  are  again  prosperous ;  if  they  see  that  the  day 
is  not  distant  when  they  shall  successfully  crown  their  effort,  for  the  public 
powers  the  termination  of  the  combats  did  not.  and  could  not.  produce  imme- 
diately those  advantageous  results. 

I  shall  not  mention  unimportant  engagements  in  which  the  Government  troops 
have  recently  been  compelled  to  punish  obstinate  rebels,  nor  shall  I  mention 
either  those  acts  showing  that  the  danger  of  an  invasion  into  our  territory  has 
not  altogether  disappeared:  but  I  will  point  out  the  fact  that  public  adminis- 
tration in  the  capital,  departments,  and  municipalities  is  still  encumbered  by 
greater  obstacles  than  such  as  in  any  other  period  of  our  independent  life. 
Owing  to  the  financial  and  economical  situation,  from  which  we  scarcely  begin 
to  disengage,  the  difficulties  to  govern  Colombia  are  now  not  less  serious  than 
those  we  had  to  combat  in  the  roughest  period  of  the  war,  and  if  in  order  to 
conquer  the  enemy  under  arms  the  Government  was  compelled  to  make  use  of 
such  powers  with  whicb  all  of  us  are  invested  to  defend  life,  not  less  legitimate 
and  necessary  wras  the  use  that  after  the  actual  fighting  the  Government  made 
similar  powers  in  order  to  defend  and  maintain  social  and  political  life — the 
life  of  the  Republic. 

Although  fighting  was  almost  over  toward  the  end  of  November  last,  never- 
theless public  order  was  not  on  that  account  restored.  The  authorities  were 
unable  to  discharge  their  duties  in  a  regular  way;  communications  with  the 
several  sections  of  the  Republic  remained  as  difficult  as  they  were  during  the 
war.  If  it  is  true  that  the  enemies  of  the  institutions  showed  themselves  unani- 
mously anxious  to  keep  peace,  those  who  defended  or  did  not  combat  them 
being  divided  into  numerous  antagonistic  and  political  groups,  however  ready 
they  may  be  to  take  arms  anew  for  the  defense  of  the  same  institutions  in  case 
it  should  be  necessary,  have  not  offered  the  Government  the  assistance  through 
which  it  could  have  restored  to  the  country  in  a  short  time  the  repose  and  wel- 
fare that  it  is  so  much  in  want  of.  The  Government  received  early  this  year 
from  different  quarters  of  the  Republic  alarming  communications  and  intelli- 
gence respecting  new  plans  to  disturb  public  order  and  on  facts  making  the 
possibility  of  the  continuance  of  our  differences  with  two  of  the  neighboring 
Republics  patent. 

Notwithstanding  (be  foregoing,  the  Government,  desirous  to  inspire  the  Co- 
lombians with  the  assurance  that  they  may  rely  upon  the  guaranties  offered 
them  by  the  constitution  and  laws,  has  declared  public  order  restored  and  has 
abdicated  such  authorities  as  under  the  martial  law  have  permitted  it  to  pro- 
vide for  its  own  defense  and  existence. 

Between  this  declaration  and  the  disarmament  of  the  adversary  much  shorter 
space  has  elapsed  than  it  has  been  the  case  between  the  end  of  any  of  our  other 
revolutions  and  the  return  to  a  normal  state  of  affairs.  Whoever  takes  into 
consideration  that  none  of  our  previous  wars  lasted  so  long  as  the  recent  one, 
which  has  shaken  the  country  with  confusion,  disturbances,  ruin,  and  disorder, 
would  repute' that  period  much  shorter  still  than  the  others. 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTOKY    OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  409 

To  Mhat  I  set  forth  in  the  proclamation,  fragments  of  which  I  have  inserted 
in  this  message,  as  to  the  necessity  of  constructing  railways  and  as  to  the 
canal  question.  I  have  likewise  to  add  what  I  hereafter  suggest. 

If  the  remedy  to  our  evils  lies  in  the  construction  of  roads  to  promote  industry 
and  trade,  that  work  is  to-day  more  necessary  than  before  for  the  purpose  of 
offering  a  scope  to  the  activity  of  our  people,  now  impoverished  and  demoralized 
by  the  recent  disturbance.  Such  work  should  also  be  a  remedy  to  stop  the 
difficulties  which  oppress  trade  in  the  northern  part  of  the  Republic.  The  con- 
struction of  a  railway  to  connect  that  section  of  the  country  with  the  Magda- 
leua  River  is  of  imperative  necessity.  Our  disputes  with  Venezuela  can  not 
definitely  come  to  an  end  until  trade  in  Santander  can  make  use  of  an  inde- 
pendent route.  Perhaps  in  a  short  time,  and  such  is  my  desire,  we  will  be  able 
to  come  to  an  understanding  with  the  Republic;  but  such  Government  can  not 
assure  us  that  the  succeeding  ones  would  respect  our  rights. 

When  I  took  upon  myself  the  responsibility  of  the  government  of  my  country, 
I  had  made  up  my  mind  to  impede  to  the  utmost  that  for  the  construction  of 
railways  and  for  any  other  undertakings  of  that  kind  we  should  negotiate  with 
foreigners.  The  unpleasant  impressions  resulting  from  certain  contracts  had 
led  me  to  form  that  resolution ;  and  in  my  quality  of  supreme  magistrate  I  have 
to  feel  more  earnestly  than  before,  and  more  than  the  rest  of  my  fellow  citizens, 
those  impressions.  To  the  contracts  alluded  to  are  owing  in  a  great  part  the 
conflicts  and  misfortune  that  we  have  endured  during  the  recent  war,  as  well  as 
the  difficulties  that  we  have  with  great  trouble  to  combat. 

Still,  I  have  been  compelled  to  change  my  mind  in  that  respect.  On  the  one 
hand  I  have  come  to  the  conclusion  that  the  construction  of  railways  is  but  the 
necessity  of  a  self-preservation;  on  the  other  hand  I  have  realized  the  impos- 
sibility of  carrying  out  any  works  of  such  magnitude  with  the  resources  ob- 
tained by  the  Government  so  long  as  our  treasure,  credit,  and  revenues  are  in 
the  condition  in  which  they_are  at  present.  In  the  same  manner  I  have  realized 
the  impossibility  for  private  Colombian  associations  to  take  over  and  carry  out 
the  scheme  above  referred  to. 

In  other  Spanish-American  nations  railways  have  been  constructed  through 
contracts  made  with  foreign  companies.  Why  should  we  not  be  able  to  do  the 
same  in  our  country?  The  bad  result  of  certain  contracts  was  only  owing  to 
the  fact  that  the  concessions  were  granted  to  parties  who  were  not  fit  for  the 
purpose,  or  that  said  concessions  have  been  approved  without  proper  study, 
care,  and  precaution.  The  same  disasters  emanating  therefrom  are  abundant 
warnings  for  us,  and  we  ought  not  to  judge  ourselves  so  incapable  as  not  to 
profit  thereby. 

The  minister  for  foreign  affairs  will  lay  before  you  the  project  of  a  conven- 
tion proposed  by  the  Government  of  the  United  States  of  America,  set  forth  the 
antecedents  thereof,  and  give  such  explanations  as  may  seem  interesting  in 
connection  with  the  canal. 

I  think  it  unnecessary  to  state  that  since  I  have  thrown  upon  you  all  the 
responsibility  that  the  decision  of  this  negotiation  brings  it  is  not  my  intention 
to  allow  my  opinion  to  weigh  in  the  matter.  Whenever  I  have  transmitted 
instructions  to  our  representatives  in  Washington,  I  have  directed  them  to 
formally  express  my  resolution  to  submit  the  study  and  decision  of  this  most 
serious  affair,  in  its  general  sense  and  its  details,  to  the  supreme  Congress. 

Fortunately  for  transacting  business  with  the  American  Government  in  con- 
nection with  the  canal  the  present  time  is  more  propitious  than  that  in  which, 
being  inundated  with  difficulties  and  dangers,  we  could  not  work  on  behalf  of 
our  interest  with  serenity  and  liberty.  On  the  other  hand,  after  many  years, 
during  which  that  matter  had  been  dealt  with  in  a  vague  manner  and  without 
any  precise  conditions,  to-day  it  is  presented  to  us  in  such  a  light  that  the  dis- 
cussion thereof  can  not  but  lead  to  practical  and  positive  results. 

Indeed,  it  has  been  one  of  our  indisputable  diplomatic  triumphs  that  the 
Senate  and  Executive  of  the  United  States,  in  spite  of  the  strong  efforts  made 
to  the  contrary,  declared  the  superiority  of  the  Colombian  route. 

As  I  have  already  said  to  you  and  all  my  fellow  citizens,  I  attribute  the  happy 
conclusion  of  the  last  war  to  the  intervention  of  the  Divine  Providence,  to  whom 
1  equally  attribute  the  fact  that  the  remedy  to  those  evils  which  gave  origin  to 
that  war  has  been  able  to  commence,  and  from  whom  I  expect  for  you  the  honor 
that  your  name  may  appear  in  our  history  by  those  of  the  legislators,  who  at 
an  epoch  of  the  greatest  decay  and  backwardness,  were  clever  enough  to  procure 
to  Colombia,  if  not  the  immediate  possession,  at  least  the  sure  hope  of  the  boons 
that  her  founders  had  devised. 


410  DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

[Telegram.] 

United  States  Legation, 
Bogota,  July  9, 1903.     (Received  July  12,  1903.) 

Confidential.     [ ]  has  requested  me  to  say  to  you  he  does 

not  think  the  treaty  can  be  ratified  without  two  amendments :  To  arti- 
cle 1,  stipulating  payment  ten  millions  by  the  canal  company  for  the 
right  to  transfer;  to  article  25,  increasing  payment  to  fifteen  millions, 
and  says  that  the  treaty  can  be  ratified  at  once  with  these  amend- 
ments.    He  asks  your  views  confidentially. 

Beaupre 


Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

[Telegram.] 

United  States  Legation, 

Bogota,  July  11,  1908. 
Confidential.  The  majority  in  the  Senate  are  opposed  to  treaty. 
Apparently  the  Government  is  not  defending  the  treaty,  although  it 
may  intend  to  later.  Its  fear  of  public  opinion  and  the  criticism  of 
the  Liberal  party  very  great.  The  danger  is  delay,  which  opposition 
fights  for.  I  think  strong  intimation  from  you  through  the  Colom- 
bian minister  or  this  legation  that  unnecessary  delay  should  be 
avoided  would  be  effective.  Otherwise  debate  may  continue  until 
September,  necessitating  instructions  communicated  by  telegraph  for 
exchange  of  ratifications. 

Beaupre 

Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

No.  78.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Bogota,  July  11,  1903. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  report  that  the  Colombian  Congress  has 
occupied  itself  with  unimportant  and  preliminary  matters  since  it 
convened  on  June  20  last.     Really  nothing  has  been  done. 

The  most  important  and  really  only  question  relating  to  the  canal 
treaty  has  been  the  motion  made  by  the  opposition  to  the  Government 
party  to  the  effect  that  the  vice  president  must  sign  the  treaty  before 
it  can  be  considered  by  the  Senate.  The  debate  on  this  question  has 
been  going  on  for  many  days  and  the  end  is  not  yet. 

Ex-President  Caro  has  been  the  leader  of  the  opposition  in  this 
debate  and  has  made  many  brilliant  speeches.  He  has  charged  the 
Government  with  lack  of  good  faith  and  consistency,  both  to  the 
United  States  and  Colombia,  in  not  defending  a  treaty  of  its  own 
making  and  endeavoring  to  throw  the  whole  responsibility  upor 
Congress. 

The  theory  of  the  discussion  is  to  the  effect  that  if  the  vice  presi- 
dent signs  the  treaty  the  entire  responsibility  for  its  making  rests 
with  the  executive  power,  while  if  the  vice  president  does  not  sign 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA  CANAL.  411 

and  the  treaty  is  either  ratified  or  rejected  no  responsibility  can  attach 
to  the  Executive. 

The  vice  president  has  positively  declined  to  sign,  and  if  the  motion 
as  presented  should  prevail,  and  he  still  refuses  his  signature,  the 
Senate  will  not  consider  the  treaty  at  all,  and  in  all  probability  Con- 
gress will  be  dissolved. 

It  is  understood  that  a  final  vote  on  the  motion  will  be  taken  on 
Tuesday  next.  As  near  as  I  can  determine,  the  Government  is  likely 
to  have  a  majority  of  one  or  two  votes,  in  which  case  something  of  a 
more  definite  nature  can  be  undertaken. 

As  I  informed  the  department  to-day,  in  a  telegram  elsewhere  con- 
firmed, there  is  every  prospect  of  the  debates  continuing  without  any 
decision  until  September,  so  that  there  will  be  only  time  to  cable 
Washington  just  before  the  22d  of  that  month  of  the  final  action  of 
Congress;  and  as  cablegrams  from  this  capital  have  often  been  de- 
layed a  month  or  more,  as  the  department  is  aware,  there  is  grave 
danger  in  this. 

If  one  could  know  just  what  would  be  the  attitude  of  the  Govern- 
ment later  on,  it  would  be  easy  enough  to  predict  the  outcome,  for  I 
still  adhere  to  my  oft-repeated  opinion  that  if  the  Government  shall 
seriously  desire  it  the  treaty  will  be  ratified.  Its  present  attitude  of 
washing  its  hands  of  the  whole  matter  will  not  do,  for  while  the 
House  is  favorable,  there  is  a  declared  majority  in  the  Senate  against 
ratification,  and  only  the  influence  of  the  Government  can  win  it  over. 

•I  am  inclined  to  believe,  from  information  obtained  at  different 
times,  some  of  which  I  have  reported  to  the  department,  that  the 
Government  intends  to  use  its  influence  later  on,  and  at  what  it  shall 
deem  the  proper  time,  in  favor  of  the  treaty.  If  so,  the  treaty  will 
be  ratified ;  if  not,  then  it  will  be  defeated. 
I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

A.  M.  Beaupre. 

Mr.  Hay  to  Mr.  Beaupre. 

[Telegram.] 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  July  13, 1903. 
Neither  of  the  proposed  amendments  mentioned  in  your  telegram x 
received  to-day  would  stand  any  chance  of  acceptance  by  the  Senate 
of  the  United  States,  while  any  amendment  whatever  or  unnecessary 
delay  in  the  ratification  of  the  treaty  would  greatly  imperil  its  con- 
summation. 

Hay. 


Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

[Telegram.] 

United  States  Legation, 
Bogota,  July  15,     (Received  July  27,  1903.) 
Confidential.     The  situation  is   a  little  more   favorable   for  the 
treaty.     It  is  generally  believed  that  it  will  be  ratified,  but  with 
amendments.     It  is  possible  it  can  be  passed  without  amendments; 

1  Dated  July  9. 


412  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL. 

but  as  the  belief  prevails  that  additional  concessions  can  be  secured, 
I  consider  it  important  that  this  Government  be  informed  through 
the  Colombian  minister  or  me  of  your  position  as  to  the  matter.  In 
any  event,  I  would  appreciate  secret  instructions  as  a  guide  in  case 
of  emergency. 

Yesterday  the  treaty  was  submitted  to  a  special  committee  of  nine 
in  the  Senate,  four,  and  probably  more,  of  whom  are  for  ratification. 

Beaupre. 


Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

No.  83.']  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Bogota  July  21,  1903. 

Sir:  As  I  had  the  honor  to  report  by  cable  on  the  15th  instant,  the 
canal  treaty  was  submitted  to  a  special  Senate  committee  of  nine 
members,  four  of  whom  were  known  to  be  favorable  to  ratification. 
This  committee  is  to  report  on  or  before  the  31st  instant. 

The  Government  has  continued  to  triumph  on  every  important 
question  brought  forward  in  Congress.  On  the  18th  instant  officers 
were  elected  in  both  houses  for  the  ensuing  thirty  days.  Senor 
Quientero  Calderon,  formerly  minister  of  government  in  Vice-Presi- 
dent Marroquin's  cabinet,  and  a  staunch  Government  man,  was 
elected  president  of  the  Senate;  Gen.  Pedro  Nel  Ospina,  now  identi- 
fied with  the  Government  forces,  and  certainly  in  favor  of  the  canal 
treaty,  first  vice-president.  In  the  House  Senor  Juan  B.  Valencia 
was  chosen  president. 

Gradually,  but  certainly,  the  situation  is  growing  more  favorable 
for  the  canal  treaty,  and  while  I  am  not  yet  prepared  to  state  the 
positive  belief  that  it  will  be  ratified,  I  see  no  reason  to  be  discouraged 
by  the  present  outlook.  The  great  danger  is  that  there  may  be  enough 
members  of  the  Senate  to  carry  certain  amendments. 

I  have  endeavored,  not  only  to  keep  in  touch  with  the  current 
events,  but  to  create  favorable  sentiment  for  the  treaty. 

It  has  been  most  difficult  to  overcome  the  at  one  time  almost  gen- 
eral belief  that  the  United  States  did  not  seriously  intend  to  adopt 
the  Nicaragua  route  should  this  Congress  fail  to  ratify  the  treaty, 
and  to  make  it  understood  that  the  great  benefit  Colombia  expected 
to  realize  from  the  construction  of  the  canal  depended  upon  prompt 
action  and  could  never  be  secured  by  future  diplomatic  negotiations. 
At  times  I  have  thought,  from  the  tone  of  the  conversation  of  cer- 
tain opponents,  that  foreign  hostile  influences  were  at  work,  but  I 
have  never  been  able  to  be  certain  of  this.  If  there,  be  opposition 
from  this  source,  it  is  of  too  secret  a  nature  to  be  discovered,  and  can 
not,  therefore,  be  particularly  effective.  On  the  whole,  I  am  inclined 
to  believe  that  no  direct  hostile  influence  is  being  used  here,  but  that, 
if  any  exists,  it  comes  through  Colombian  legations  or  consulates  in 
Europe. 

I  have  certain,  but  private,  information  that  Doctor  Uricoechea,  a 
member  of  the  special  Senate  committee  heretofore  referred  to,  and 
who  lived  a  great  many  years  in  Germany,  called  on  Baron  Griinau, 
the  German  charge  d'affaires,  to  inquire  what  would  be  the  attitude  of 
tho  German  Government  in  case  of  trouble  arising  out  of  the  matter, 
and  whether  it  would  be  willing  to  undertake  or  aid  the  construction 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF    IHE   PANAMA  CANAL.  413 

of  the  canal  in  case  the  treaty  with  the  United  States  should  not  be 
ratified.  Baron  Grunau  replied  that  he  had  no  instructions  bearing 
upon  the  subject,  but  that  he  was  of  the  positive  opinion  that,  consid- 
ering how  desirous  his  Government  was  at  the  present  moment  to 
remain  on  friendly  terms  with  the  United  States,  it  would  not  take 
any  steps  with  reference  to  the  construction  of  the  canal  or  to  any 
controversy  growing  out  of  the  present  negotiations;  that  he  would, 
however,  submit  the  matter  to  his  Government. 

My  English  colleague,  with  whom  I  have  the  most  pleasant  per- 
sonal relations  and  whose  attitude  I  know  has  been  one  of  unswerv- 
ing friendliness  to  our  interests  in  this  matter,  informs  me  that  one 
of  the  Deputies  of  the  Chamber  of  Representatives  called  on  him 
with  an  inquiry  similar  to  the  one  above  mentioned.  To  this  he  re- 
plied that  this  question  was  thoroughly  considered  by  His  Majesty's 
Government  at  the  time  the  modifications  were  made  in  the  Bulwer- 
Clayton  treaty,  and  that  his  Government  was  of  the  opinion  that  the 
safeguards  contained  in  the  Hay-Pauncefote  arrangement  formed  a 
sufficient  guaranty  for  the  commerce  of  the  world  and  was,  therefore, 
willing  now  to  leave  the  United  States  quite  free  as  regards  any  fur- 
ther negotiations  with  reference  to  the  construction  of  a  canal. 

The  generality  of  the  legislators  here  have  thought  that  further  and 
greater  concessions  could  be  obtained  from  the  United  States,  and 
that  in  this  particular  the  treaty  could  be  amended  with  safety  to  the 
interests  of  Colombia.  This  has  been  and  is  the  most  stubborn 
stronghold  of  the  enemy — at  all  times  the  most  dangerous  to  us — 
and  to  it  I  have  given  more  attention  than  to  all  else.  It  was  because 
of  this  that  I  cabled  the  department  of  the  importance  of  informing 
the  Colombian  Government,  through  its  minister  at  Washington  or 
this  legation,  of  its  views.  To  be  able  to  make  an  official  representa- 
tion would  have  far  greater  weight  than  an  expression  of  opinion. 

I  have  reason  to  know  that  the  Government  understands — at  any 
rate,  the  Vice  President  does — that  amendments  are  not  to  be  thought 
of,  but  I  hope  to  receive  instructions  from  you,  when  cable  communi- 
cation is  reestablished,  to  bolster  up  and  strengthen  this  under- 
standing. 

I  have  believed  that  I  could,  with  discretion  and  propriety,  use  my 
influence  in  creating  a  favorable  sentiment,  making  the  interests  of 
Colombia  the  basis  of  my  arguments ;  and  I  have  not  hesitated  to  do 
this  whenever  circumstances  would  permit  a  conversation  with  men 
whose  influence  would  be  of  no  avail. 

T  have  the  satisfaction  of  knowing  that  I  have  accomplished  a  cer- 
tain amount  of  good,  and  that,  whatever  be  the  result,  all  of  the 
ability  and  energy  which  I  possess  shall  be  given  to  the  consummation 
of  the  department's  desires. 

I  am.  sir,  vour  obedient  servant.  A.  M.  Beafpre. 


Mr.  Loomis  to  Mr.  Beaupre. 

No.  23.]  Department  of  State. 

July  21.  1903. 
Sir  :  At  the  instance  of  the  Hon.  John  T.  Morgan,  I  have  to  request 
that  you  will  forward  two  copies  of  the  proclamation  of  Acting  Presi- 


414  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

dent  Marroquin,  calling  the  session  of  Congress  to  consider  the  canal 
treaty,  and  two  copies  of  the  law  under  which  the  proclamation  was 
issued. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

Francis  B.  Loomis, 

Acting  Secretary. 


Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

No.  85.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Bogota,  July  22,  1903. 

Sir:  Referring  to  the  department's  telegram  of  April  7,  1903,  to 
my  No.  10  of  April  24,  1903,  and  No.  44  of  June  10,  1903,  concern- 
ing the  proposed  cancellation  of  the  present  concessions  of  the 
Panama  Canal  and  Eailroad  Companies,  I  have  the  honor  to  trans- 
mit herewith  a  copy  and  translation  of  a  note  received  from  the 
minister  for  foreign  affairs  on  the  subject,  together  with  a  copy  of 
my  reply  thereto.  As  soon  as  cable  communication  is  reestablished 
I  propose  to  telegraph  the  department  the  substance  of  this  cor- 
respondence. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant. 


A.  M.  Beaupre. 


[Inclosure  1. — Translation.] 


Ministry  of  Foreign   Relations, 

Bogota,  July  21,  1903. 
Mr.  Minister:  In  your  polite  note  of  the  24th  of  April  last,  your  excellency 
was  pleased  to  inform  me,  in  accordance  with  the  instructions  of  your  Govern- 
ment, that  all  that  referring  to  the  cancellation  of  the  actual  shares  of  the 
Panama  Canal  and  Railroad  Companies,  was  included  in  the  convention  be- 
tween Colombia  and  the  United  States,  signed  on  the  22d  of  January  last,  for 
the  opening  of  the  canal. 

I  shall  be  obliged  by  your  excellency's  telling  me,  as  early  as  possible,  if 
modifications,  which,  according  to  the  final  part  of  the  note  referred  to,  are 
considered  as  violating  the  Spooner  law.  are  only  those  which  concern  the 
concessions  of  each  of  the  companies,  or  if  they  are  such  also  as  may  be 
adopted  with  regard  to  the  (treaty  itself)  convention  spoken  of. 
With  this  motive,  etc.. 

(Signed)  Luis  Carlos  Rico 

To  his  excellency  A.  M.  Beaupre. 

Envoy  Extraordinary  and   Minister 

Plenipotentiary  of  the  United  States,  etc. 


[Inclosure  2.] 

Mr.    Beaupre'    to    Doctor   Rico. 

Legation   of  the   United    States, 

Bogota,  July  22,  1903. 
His  excellency  Dr.  Luis  Carlos  Rico. 

Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs  of  the  Republic  of  Colombia. 
Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  excellency's  polite 
note  of  the  21st  instant,  referring  to  my  note  of  April  24,  1903.  concerning  the 
requests  of  the  Colombian  Government  to  the  Panama  Canal  and  Railroad  Com- 
panies for  the  appointment  of  agents  to  negotiate  the  cancellation  of  present 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY  OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  415 

concessions,  etc..  in  which  I  informed  your  excellency  that  my  Government 
considers  that  the  treaty  covers  the  entire  matter,  and  any  change  would  be 
in  violation  of  the  Spooner  law,  and  not  permissible. 

Your  excellency  asks  me  if  any  modifications  in  the  treaty  itself  would  be 
considered  in  violation  of  the  Spooner  law,  as  those  other  suggestions  for 
special  cancellation  of  the  concessions  of  the  companies  have  been  so  considered 
by  my  Government. 

I  have  the  honor  to  say  to  your  excellency  that  with  the  approval  by  the 
United  States  Senate  of  the  treaty  between  Colombia  and  the  United  States, 
signed  on  the  22d  of  January,  1903,  the  Spooner  law,  which  authorized  the 
making  of  that  treaty,  was  fully  complied  with,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Senate, 
so  far  as  the  Panama  route  is  concerned.  Hence,  the  said  law  went  out  of 
active  existence  with  reference  to  Panama,  and  can  only  again  become  a  sub- 
ject for  discussion,  and  then  in  reference  to  the  Nicaragua  route,  in  the  event 
of  the  rejection  of  the  treaty  by  Colombia. 

This  is,  of  course,  my  personal  opinion,  which,  unfortunately,  I  am  unable  at 
present  to  confirm  by  cable  reference  to  my  Government.  But  I  consider  it  my 
duty  to  inform  your  excellency  that  I  have  no  reason  to  believe  that  my  Govern- 
ment will  consider  or  discuss  'again  any  modifications  whatever  to  the  treaty 
as  it  stands.  This  strong  impression  I  gather  from  a  careful  reading  and  study 
of  the  notes  already  in  your  excellency's  possession,  for,  if  in  the  case  of  the 
concessions  of  the  companies  my  Government  would  consider  their  modification 
as  violating  the  Spooner  law,  then,  with  much  more  reason,  it  would  seem  that 
the  treaty  itself,  as  the  official  interpretation  of  the  law,  can  not  be  modified 
at  all  without  violating  that  law. 

I  shall,  of  course,  submit  your  excellency's  note  to  my  Government  as  soon  as 
it  is  possible  to  do  so  by  reopening  of  cable  communication. 
I  embrace  this  opportunity,  etc., 

(Signed)  A.  M.  Beaupr^;. 


Mr.  Loomis  to  Mr.  Beaupre. 

[  Telegram.] 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  July  29,  1903. 
Would  like  information  as  to  present  situation. 

Loomis,  Acting. 

Mr.  Hay  to  Mr.  Beaupre. 

[Telegram.] 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  July  31,  1903. 
Instructions  heretofore  sent  to  you  show  the  great  danger  of  amend- 
ing the  treaty.  This  Government  has  no  right  or  competence  to  cov- 
enant with  Colombia  to  impose  new  financial  obligation  upon  canal 
company  and  the  President  would  not  submit  to  our  Senate  any 
amendment  in  that  sense,  but  would  treat  it  as  voiding  the  negotiation 
and  bringing  about  a  failure  to  conclude  a  satisfactory  treaty  with 
Colombia.  No  additional  payment  by  the  United  States  can  hope  for 
approval  by  United  States  Senate,  while  any  amendment  whatever 
requiring  reconsideration  by  that  body  would  most  certainly  imperil 
its  consummation.  You  are  at  liberty  to  make  discreet  unofficial  use 
of  your  instructions  in  the  proper  quarters.  The  Colombian  Govern- 
ment and  Congress  should  realize  the  grave  risk  of  ruining  the  nego- 
tiation by  improvident  amendment. 

Hay. 


416  DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA  CANAL. 

Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

No.  90.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Bogota,  August  3,  1903. 
Sir:  Mr.  Spencer  S.  Dickson,  British  vice  consul  at  this  capital, 
has  prepared  for  his  Government  an  interesting  memorandum  rela- 
tive to  the  discussions  in  the  Bogota  press  on  the  question  of  the 
proposed  Panama  Canal  as  a  business  concern,  and  has  been  good 
enough  to  furnish  me  with  a  copy,  which  I  have  the  honor  to  inclose 
herewith. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

A.  M.  Beaupre. 


[Inclosure  1.] 

Memorandum  by  Mr.  Spencer  S.  Dickson,  relative  to  the  discussions  in  the 
Bogota  press  on  the  question  of  the  proposed  Panama  Canal  as  a  business 
concern. 

Since  the  news  of  the  signing  of  the  Hay-Herran  treaty  last  February,  the 
imagination  of  the  Bogota  public,  as  expressed  in  the  local  press,  has  been 
occupied  with  the  question  as  to  what  is  the  extent  of  the  pecuniary  advantages 
which  the  Government  of  the  United  States  is  about  to  derive  from  tbe  pro- 
posed undertaking.  The  articles  written  have  so  ridiculously  exaggerated  the 
possible  takings,  even  from  the  most  optimistic  standpoint,  as  to  render  them- 
selves unworthy  of  any  notice  whatever,  were  it  not  for  an  interesting  answer 
they  have  called  forth  from  the  pen  of  Mr.  J.  T.  Ford,  the  manager  of  the  Car- 
tagena Harbor,  Railway,  and  River  companies.  Mr.  Ford's  article  is  princi- 
pally directed  against  an  article  written  by  a  Dr.  Novoa  Zerda,  a  prominent 
Bogota  lawyer,  who  bas  published  an  elaborate  statement  in  the  Bogota  press 
in  which  he  proves,  to  his  own  satisfaction,  that  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  are,  by  the  terms  of  the  Hay-Herran  treaty,  securing  for  themselves  a 
net  profit  of  $1.IS6,537,377  during  the  first  term  of  the  concession. 

My  reason  for  transmitting  this  memorandum  is  that  the  statements  made  by 
Mr.  Ford  in  his  answer,  based. .as  they  are.  on  long  experience  and  a  thorough 
knowledge  of  the  conditions  ruling,  mei'it  attention  and  are,  as  far  as  I  am 
aware,  of  a  somewhat  novel  character,  though  on  a  question  already  so  much 
discussed.  Mr.  Ford,  M.  I.  C.  E.,  a  British  subject,  holds  the  position  of  con- 
sulting engineer  to  the  Colombian  Government,  and  has  at  various  times  been 
attached  to  the  Colombian  legation  at  Washington  during  the  course  of  the  nego- 
tiations which  have  taken  place  respecting  the  construction  of  an  Isthmian 
<  'anal.  He  has  brought  his  knowledge  and  experience  to  prove  that  the  Panama 
Canal  is  not  a  profitable  undertaking  from  a  commercial  point  of  view,  and  is 
valuable  to  the  United  States  only  because  of  its  naval  significance. 

Mr.  Ford,  in  estimating  the  commercial  value  of  the  projected  Panama  Canal, 
has  taken  as  a  basis  the  experience  gained  by  the  Suez  Canal.  The  traffic  of 
the  latter  is  regulated  by  an  international  convention,  the  terms  of  which  the 
United  States  and  Great  Britain  adopted  when  formulating  the  Hay-Pa uncefote 
treaty,  signed  to  substitute  that  known  as  the  Clayton-Bulwer.  These  regula- 
tions establish  a  special  tonnage  measurement,  which  is  neither  the  gross  nor 
the  net  of  the  ordinary  tonnages  of  Lloyd's.  Nor  is  it  tbe  tonnage  system  of 
Germany  or  France.     It  is  the  Suez  Canal  system. 

The  Suez  Canal  in  1900,  thirty-two  years  after  being  open  to  trade  and  with 
all  the  extra  traffic  produced  by  the  Transvaal  war  and  the  intervention  of  the 
European  [towers  in  the  Boxer  attack  on  Peking,  had  a  traffic  of  3.441  vessels  of 
13,699 ,23s  gross  tons,  or  9,738.152  Suez  tons.1 

Francs. 

Its  gross  product  in  money  was 93,451,403 

Expenses  of  operation  and  maintenance . 25,  64S,  264 

Resulting  in  a  net  income  of 67,  S03, 139 

1  The  later  returns  for  1901  show  a  still  greater  increase. 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  417 

Supposing  that  Colombia  rejects  the  Hay-Herran  treaty  and  constructs  the 
Panama  Canal  for  its  own  account,  so  as  to  have  the  full  benefit  of  all  the 
takings.  Take  also  for  granted  the  absurd  supposition  that,  in  the  first  year  of 
its  being  opened  to  public  traffic,  tbis  canal  shall  be  able  to  show  the  same  ton- 
nage as  that  of  Suez  in  1900.  thirty-two  years  after  its  opening.  Taking  the 
above  tonnage  only  and  the  gross  product  of  the  canal  in  money,  an  average 
for  purpose  of  comparison  is  deduced  of  6.80 1  francs  per  ton  (gross),  or  $1.36 
American  gold,  by  the  Suez  route.  With  regard  to  the  question  of  population 
served  by  the  two  canals,  the  continents  of  North  and  South  America  together 
contain  but  one  hundred  and  fifty  million  inhabitants.  The  canal  will  only  be 
used  by  a  portion  of  the  trade  of  the  western  coast  of  the  two  continents,  with 
part  of  the  eastern  coast,  and  with  Europe.  It  is  evident  that  trade  can  not  in 
the  first  year  reach  the  same  figure  as  the  total  trade  of  Suez,  which  unites 
the  continents  of  Europe  and  Asia,  with  twelve  hundred  million  inhabitants 
between  them.  To  do  this,  Panama  must  take  from  Suez  at  least  one-half  its 
trade.  Suppose  this  second  absurdity  be  regarded  as  a  possibility,  owing  to  the 
superiority  of  the  Panama  route  between  certain  ports,  admitting  a  certain 
amount  of  competition  in  freights  from  Europe  to  Australia,  New  Zealand,  and 
to  the  islands  of  the  Pacific,  it  is  a  question  whether  Great  Britain  would,  with- 
out a  struggle,  thus  allow  the  deviation  of  this  important  trade  from  its  present 
established  route.  The  immediate  creation  of  the  3.000  new  vessels  necessary 
for  the  traffic  deviated  from  the  transcontinental  railroads  must  also  be  taken 
as  an  accomplished  fact.  Against  these  hypotheses  there  is  the  following  con- 
sideration— the  shares  of  the  Suez  Canal  are  being  sold  at  nearly  ten  times  their 
nominal  value.  It  is  perfectly  evident  that  this  extraordinary  company  would 
certainly  be  well  able  to  attempt  to  avert  its  ruin  or  injury  and  face  competi- 
tion by  making  some  reduction  in  its  tariff;  but  supposing  that  the  Panama 
Canal  has,  by  competing  with  the  Cape  Horn  route  and  the  transcontinental 
railroads,  created  for  itself  a  trade  equal  to  half  the  trade  of  Suez;  also,  that 
owing  to  its  admitted  superiority  in  certain  voyages  now  made  via  Suez,  Panama 
has  taken  away  from  Suez  the  half  of  its  total  trade,  the  Panama  Canal  would 
then  have  its  13.699.23S  gross  tons  as  above ;  but  also,  for  the  above-mentioned 
reasons  of  competition,  the  rate  per  ton  would  have  to  be  reduced,  probably,  to 
say  $0.70  gold  to  obtain  that  result  in  tonnage.  This  trade,  on  the  same  basis 
as  above,  would  give  to  Panama  a  gross  earning  of  $9.5S9.466.2 

As  to  the  operating  cost,  the  country  in  which  the  Suez  Canal  is  situated  has 
a  dry  climate,  without  rains,  and  is  so  healthy  that  the  same  class  of  invalids 
as  go  to  the  Riviera  and  other  sanatoriums  of  Europe  make  it  their  residence 
in  winter.  It  is  moreover  a  simple  canal  in  a  sandy  plain  without  locks,  or 
any  other  artificial  works  of  importance.  Panama,  on  the  other  hand,  has  a 
disastrously  unhealthy  climate.  Very  high  salaries  would  have  to  be  paid  and 
a  much  greater  number  of  employees  would  be  required  than  at  Suez.  There 
are  unforeseen  damages  to  be  provided  for,  owing  to  the  torrential  rains. 
Difficulties  have  to  be  faced  in  the  management  of  locks  and  the  maintenance 
of  artificial  works  without  parallel  up  to  the  present  in  the  entire  world,  be- 
cause of  their  monumental  proportions.  Mr.  Ford,  however,  to  err  on  the 
right  side,  assumes  that  the  cost  of  operating  the  Panama  Canal  will  be  no 
more  than  that  expended  at  Suez.  The  gross  cost  of  operation  at  Suez  for 
handling  the  traffic  of  1900  was  25,648,264  francs  or  $5,129,653  American  gold. 

The  Panama  accounts,  under  these  conditions,  would  be  as  follows : 

13,699.23S  tons  at  the  above  rate  of  $0.70  per  ton  would  be $9,589,466 

Cost  of  administration  (the  same  as  Suez  in  1900) 5,129,653 

Net  earnings 4,459,813 

The  minimum  figure  for  the  cost  of  construction  of  the  Panama  Canal,  with 
locks,  including  cost  of  French  canal  works  and  other  contingencies,  may  be 
taken  at  $200,000,000.  according  to  the  best  available  estimates.  Mr.  Ford  then 
assumes  another  favorable  absurdity — that  Colombia  has  a  credit  equal 
to  the  credit  of  the  United  States  and  that  she  could  therefore  obtain  the 
$200,000,000  capital  required  for  the  construction  at  3  per  cent  interest  without 

1  This,  of  course,  is  not  the  actual  rate  charged  at  Suez,  since  Mr.  Ford  has  taken  the 
gross  and  not  the  Suez  tonnage,  and  the  gross  earnings  include  other  charges  beside  the 
simple  tonnage  of  the  ships,  but  the  above  figure  fully  illustrates  the  point  made. 

3  Mr.  Ford  again  uses  here  his  arbitrarily  deduced  average  rate,  and  not  the  probable 
actual  rate. 

42112— S.  Doc.  474,  63-2 27 


418  DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA  CANAL. 

initial  discount.  She  would  then  have  in  hand  the  $4,459,813,  the  net  earning 
of  the  canal,  to  pay  the  interest  on  the  invested  capital.  The  account  then 
stands  as  follows : 

Three  per  cent  on  $200.000,000 $6,000,000 

Net  earning 4,459,813 

Colombia  would  therefore  have  an  annual  deficit  of 1,  540, 187 

instead  of  the  net  sum  of  $550,000 '  per  annum,  which  she  would  receive  under 
the  Hay-Herran  treaty,  leaving  to  the  United  States  the  above-mentioned 
deficit,  plus  the  $250,000  extra  rent  paid  to  Colombia. 

Mr.  Ford  then  goes  on  to  point  out  th;it  should  Colombia  build  a  sea-level 
canal,  costing  $400,000,000  instead  of  $200,000,000,  she  would  find  herself  with 
an  anuual  detidt  of  $7,540,187,  including  the  3  per  cent  on  the  extra  $200,000,000. 

In  the  discussions  which  have  taken  place,  those  opposed  to  the  treaty  have 
argued  on  the  fact  that  in  previous  concessions  made  with  private  parties  the 
terms  for  the  Colombian  Government  have  been  much  more  favorable.  To  this 
Mr.  Ford  opposes  the  fact  that  those  old  contracts  were  signed  in  complete 
ignorance  of  the  Suez  undertaking  and  the  enormous  natural  difficulties  and 
cost  of  building  a  canal  at  Panama  which  would  compare  at  all  points  with 
Suez,  and  before  the  experience  gained  through  the  working  of  that  canal 
could  throw  real  light  on  the  profit  and  loss  account  of  such  an  undertaking. 
The  natural  difficulties  inherent  to  the  working  of  the  Isthmus  of  Panama, 
which  were  the  cause  of  the  failure  of  the  French,  even  with  their  superior 
contract  of  1878,  were  then  all  unknown.  It  is  a  mistake,  says  Mr.  Ford,  to 
suppose  that  the  "United  States  would  make  a  contract  similar  to  those  made 
formerly  when  the  same  ignorance  of  conditions  does  not  exist. 

The  canal  can  not  be  a  paying  concern  for  any  country  except  the  United 
States,  and  for  the  United  States  it  is  a  paying  concern,  not  from  a  commercial 
standpoint — it  will  therein  be  a  loser — but  on  account  of  its  Navy.  To  show 
that  this  statement  as  regards  its  commercial  value  is  not  exaggerated,  Mr. 
Ford  refers  to  the  map  of  the  continents  of  America.  The  Cordillera  of  the 
Andes,  from  Patagonia  to  Panama,  the  Sierra  Madre  of  Mexico,  and  the  Rocky 
Mountains  of  the  north,  which  end  in  Alaska,  are  so  situated  that  on  the  side 
of  the  Pacific  there  is  only  a  small  strip  of  territory,  very  narrow  and  com- 
paratively sterile,  whereas  on  the  Atlantic  disk  and  in  direct  communication 
with  Europe  (where  the  Panama  Canal  will  never  be  needed)  are  situated 
seven-eighths  of  its  one  hundred  and  fifty  millions  of  inhabitants  and  the  whole 
of  its  productive  lands,  i.  e..  Argentina,  Brazil,  Mexico.  Colombia.  Vene- 
zuela, the  United  States,  and  Canada  to  one  hundred  and  fifteenth  meridian 
west,  approximately.  As  far  as  the  above  countries  are  concerned,  their  trade 
can  never  reasonably  be  expected  to  make  use  of  the  Panama  Canal  to  any 
extent  worth  considering  at  present. 

Spencer  S.  Dickson, 
His  Britannic  Majesty's  Vice  Consul. 


Mr.  Loomis  to  Mr.  Beaupre. 

No.  26.]  Department  of  State. 

Washington,  August  3.  1903. 

Sir:  I  have  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  No.  67  of  July  1, 
last,  concerning  the  Panama  Canal.    It  is  receiving  consideration. 

There  is  an  error  in  translation  in  the  twentieth  line  of  the  second 
page  of  the  note  inclosed.     "Dos  compafiias"  has  been  translated 
"  two  countries  "  instead  of  "  companies." 
I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

Francis  B.  Loomis, 

Acting  Secretary. 

1  Three  per  cent  on  the  $10,000,000  compensation  under  the  treaty,  plus  the  $250,000 
annual  rent. 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  419 

Mr.  Beau  pre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

[Telegram.] 

United  States  Legation, 
Bogota.  August  5,  1903.     (Received  12.) 

Referring  to  my  dispatch  of  April  24,  containing  your  cipher  tele- 
gram, April  7,  I  have  received  a  note  from  minister  for  foreign 
affairs  asking  if  "  any  modification  in  the  treaty  itself  would  be  con- 
sidered in  violation  of  Spooner  law,  the  same  as  suggestions  for 
canceling  concessions  of  companies  had  been  considered  by  the  Gov- 
ernment of  the  United  States." 

I  replied  July  22  substantially  as  follows:  With  the  approval  of 
the  treaty  by  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  the  Spooner  law,  which 
authorized  its  making,  was  fully  complied  with,  so  far  as  the  Panama 
route  is  concerned.  Hence  said  law  went  out  of  active  existence  with 
reference  to  Panama,  and  can  only  become  a  subject  of  discussion, 
and  then  with  reference  to  Nicaragua,  in  the  event  of  rejection  of  the 
treaty  by  Colombia.  This  is  my  personal  opinion,  which  I  am  unable 
at  present  to  confirm  by  cable  reference  to  my  Government,  but  I 
believe  it  my  duty  to  inform  you  that  I  have  no  reason  to  believe  my 
Government  will  again  consider  or  discuss  any  modification  whatever 
to  the  treaty  as  it  stands,  which  impression  I  gather  from  a  careful 
reading  and  study  of  the  notes  already  in  your  possession,  for  if  in 
case  of  concessions  of  the  companies  my  Government  would  consider 
their  modifications  in  violation  of  Spooner  law,  then  with  great 
reason  it  would  seem  the  treaty  itself  as  the  official  interpretation  of 
(the  law)  can  not  be  modified  at  all  without  violating  that  law. 

From  conversations  with  prominent  Senators  I  believe  the  Govern- 
ment does  not  consider  my  opinions  as  final  or  authoritative.  I  beg 
for  an  emphatic  statement  from  you  or  instructions  under  my  tele- 
gram of  July  15.  There  is  much  danger  that  the  treaty  will  be 
amended. 

Beaut-re. 


Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

[Telegram.] 

United  States  Legation, 
Bogota  {dated  5th).     (Received  August  12,  1903.) 

August  5,  10  a.  m.  It  is  now  apparent  that  the  treaty  will  not  be 
ratified  without  amendment,  because  the  positive  influence  on  the  part 
of  this  Government  can  not  be  expected.  There  are  but  eight  Sena- 
tors of  the  twenty-four  in  favor  of  it,  but  more  than  two-thirds  are 
in  favor  of  the  report  of  the  committee,  which  is  as  follows : 

First.  In  the  preamble  the  references  to  the  Spooner  law  shall  be 
suppressed. 

Second.  In  article  1  the  condition  shall  be  introduced  that  the 
Panama  Railroad  and  Canal  Company  shall  be  obliged  beforehand  to 
make  arrangements  with  Colombian  Government  in  which  the  condi- 
tions shall  be  established  under  which  that  Government  will  grant 
consent  necessary  to  enable  these  companies  to  transfer  their  rights 


420  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA   CANAL. 

to  the  United  States.  It  shall  be  expressed  that  Colombia  shall  recover 
ownership  of  all  land  grants  which  are  at  present  in  the  possession  of 
companies,  without  excepting  any  of  such  lands,  to  the  end  that  the 
cities  of  Panama  and  Colon  may  remain  effectively  and  completely 
excluded  from  zone  which  is  the  subject  of  the  concession. 

Third.  Terms  of  articles  2  and  3  shall  be  modified  in  such  a  manner 
as  to  express  clearly  that  Colombia  grants  the  United  States  only  the 
right  of  use  of  the  zone  and  parts  adjacent  territory.  It  should  be 
expressed  with  precision  that  the  rights  granted  the  United  States  are 
in  nature  of  tenancy,  excluding  the  idea  of  ownership,  and  establish- 
ing in  a  peremptory  manner  the  perpetuity  of  the  concession.  The 
boundary  of  zone  shall  be  indicated  with  the  greatest  precision,  and 
the  necessary  properties  to  which  concession  extends  shall  be  clearly 
determined^  excluding  from  the  concession,  in  an  unequivocal  manner, 
cities  Panama  and  Colon ;  besides  which  it  shall  be  stated  that  the 
guaranty  of  the  treaty  of  1846-1848  shall  not  be  modified  in  any  way 
whatever,  and  shall  continue  in  its  application  to  the  whole  Depart- 
ment of  Panama,  inclusive  of  the  zone. 

Fourth.  In  article  7  concession  of  the  right  of  gratuitous  use  of 
the  waters  of  lakes,  lagoons,  rivers,  and  the  other  streams,  whether 
natural  or  artificial,  which  may  be  devoted  to  the  supply  of  the  canal 
or  auxiliary  channel,  or  which  may  be  made  use  of  during  its  construc- 
tion, maintenance,  or  operation,  shall  be  clearly  limited,  in  order  that 
they  may  be  deviated  in  their  course,  elevated  or  lessened  in  their 
levels^  converted  into  lakes,  widened  or  narrowed,  if  necessary,  for 
such  purposes.  It  shall  be  established  that  this  right  is  exclusive  only 
in  so  far  as  it  refers  to  use  of  such  waters  for  the  supply  and  main- 
tenance of  the  canal,  or  of  the  auxiliary  channels,  without  allowing 
that  concessions  are  to  prevent  utilization  of  such  waters  by  others  in 
virtue  of  their  legitimate  rights  for  any  purpose  which  is  not  one  of 
navigation  and  would  not  disturb,  make  difficult,  or  prejudice  employ- 
ment that  the  United  States  may  desire  to  give  such  waters  for  the 
above-mentioned  purposes.  The  use  of  waters  or  rivers  outside  zone 
of  the  canal  for  the  transportation  materials,  etc.,  shall  not  be  an 
exclusive  right  of  the  United  States,  but  the  right  shall  be  given  to 
them  to  use  the  waters,  without  tax  or  charge  of  any  kind,  in  so  far 
as  the  use  relates  to  maintenance  and  operations  of  the  concession. 
The  natural  product  property  of  the  Republic  which  the  United 
States  may  take  for  the  work  shall  be  determined  with  the  greatest 
precision  possible,  limiting  this  concession  to  the  Department  of 
Panama,  and  determining  that  the  compensations  which  may  have  to 
take  place  under  article  7  in  all  things  shall  be  subject  to  what  is 
provided  in  article  14. 

Fifth.  In  article  8  uncertainty  of  the  clause  shall  be  corrected  un- 
der which  no  duties  of  any  kind  shall  be  collected  in  the  cities  Pan- 
ama and  Colon,  with  the  exception  of  merchandise  destined  to  be 
introduced  for  the  consumption  of  the  rest  of  the  Republic. 

Sixth.  In  article  13  all  relating  to  establishment  of  tribunals  of 
the  United  States  and  to  application  of  the  laws  of  United  States  in 
Colombian  territory  shall  be  suppressed,  as  it  is  contrary  to  article  10 
of  the  constitution,  and  it  shall  be  established  that  the  regulations, 
police  and  sanitary,  which  will  be  in  force  in  the  zone  shall  be  sub- 
ject to  an  agreement  between  the  two  Governments. 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  421 

Seventh.  Indemnities  which  the  concession  mentioned  in  article  14 
will  decide  upon  for  the  seizures  which  may  have  to  be  made  in  those 
cases  which  are  mentioned  in  the  same  article  shall  be  determined 
and  paid  by  the  United  States,  in  accordance  with  valuation  at  the 
time. 

Eighth.  In  article  24  a  clause  of  forfeiture  shall  be  introduced 
fixing  termination,  which,  if  exceeded,  and  if  work  shall  not  have 
been  executed,  all  the  concessions  must  cease  to  exist  and  all  proper- 
ties and  rights  of  the  undertaking  shall  revert  to  Colombia.  The 
last  paragraph,  article  25,  beginning  "  But  any  delay,"  shall  be  sup- 
pressed. 

Ninth.  In  an  additional  clause  the  tribunal,  which  must  decide 
upon  the  differences  which  may  arise  between  the  contracting  parties 
as  to  the  fulfillment  of  the  treaty,  shall  be  indicated. 

Beaupre. 


Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

[Telegram] 

United  States  Legation, 
Bogota,  August  5.  (Received  16.) 
August  5,  10  a.  m.  I  have  addressed  a  note  minister  for  foreign 
affairs  concerning  the  report  of  the  committee  appointed  to  consider 
the  treaty,  to  the  effect  that  the  proposed  modification  article  1  is 
tatamount  rejection  the  treaty.  My  opinion  is  that  my  Government 
would  not  consider  or  discuss  the  amendment ;  that  the  committee  has 
been  insufficiently  acquainted  with  my  notes,  April  24,  June  10,  or 
have  failed  to  give  them  importance  they  demand  as  definite  expres- 
sion of  opinion  and  intention  of  the  Government  of  the  United 
States.  The  amendment,  article  13,  suppressing  tribunals,  will  not 
be  accepted  in  any  event,  and  the  other  modifications,  not  so  serious 
in  principle,  are  too  little  value  to  Colombia  to  submit  for  the  discus- 
sion of  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.  They  could  be  adjusted  by 
assurances  or  by  special  legislation  when  the  commission  required 
by  the  treaty  has  been  appointed.  Closing  with  strong  reminder  of 
the  dangerous  consequences  of  further  unnecessary  delay,  urging 
that  if  Colombia  really  desires  to  preserve  friendly  relations  and  to 
secure  the  advantages  of  canal,  backed  by  so  close  an  alliance  of 
national  interests,  the  treaty  should  be  ratified  without  modification. 

Beaupre. 


Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay,  via  ate  at  Colon. 

[Telegram.] 

United  States  Legation  to  Colombia,  August  5,  1903. 

(From  Colon,  August  18,  1903.) 
No  cable  received  since  (the)  13th  July,  the  company  having  closed 
Buenaventura  office.     Government  does  not  allow  cables  to  pass  over 
land  lines.    Situation  critical.    American  minister  Bogota.    August  5. 

Malmros. 


422  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

[Telegram.] 

United  States  Legation, 
Bogota,  August  6,  1903.     (Received  12.) 
August  6,  10  a.  in.     Confidential.     Note  reference  to  treaty  1846  in 
the  committee  report.    Colombia  dreads  above  all  things  newspaper- 
reported  intention  of  the  United  States  to  denounce  the  treaty  in  the 
event  of  rejecting  canal  treaty. 

I  have  additional  confirmation,  the  statement  of  my  dispatch  No.  49 
June  15. 

Beaupre. 


Mr.  Beaupre  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

No.  98.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Bogota,  August  7, 1908. 

Sir  :  I  have  the  honor  to  report  that  the  telegrams  which  I  had  the 
good  fortune  to  get  through  yesterday  and  the  day  before  give  a  more 
or  less  accurate  idea  of  the  situation  in  so  far  as  the  canal  treaty  is 
concerned. 

These  telegrams  are  the  only  ones  thus  far  passed  since  the  15th 
ultimo,  and  it  was  only  after,  very  earnest  interviews  with  the  vice- 
president,  the  minister  for  foreign  affairs,  the  minister  of  govern- 
ment, and  the  director-general  of  mails  and  telegraphs  that  I  finally 
succeeded.1 

The  report  of  the  special  committee  of  the  Senate  appointed  to  con- 
sider the  treaty  presented  on  the  4th  instant,  and  transmitted  in  my 
telegram  of  the  5th  instant,  was  signed  by  seven  of  the  nine  members 
of  the  committee  and  was  in  the  nature  of  a  compromise.  The  two 
other  members  made  independent  reports  amending  nearly  every 
article  of  the  treaty,  but  as  they  will  have  no  weight  in  the  ultimate 
decision  of  the  matter  it  is  not  necessary  to  mention  them. 

On  the  morning  of  the  5th  instant  I  addressed  a  note  to  the  min- 
ister for  foreign  affairs  concerning  the  committee's  report,  a  copy  of 
which  is  herewith  inclosed. 

Early  in  the  afternoon  of  the  same  day  I  received  the  department's 
telegram  of  the  31st  ultimo,  and  as  the  instructions  therein  had  a 
direct  bearing  upon  the  question  I  immediately  dispatched  another 
note  to  the  minister  for  foreign  affairs,  a  copy  of  which  is  herewith 
inclosed.  A  reference  to  my  telegram  of  the  6th  instant  concerning 
the  treaty  of  1846  will  give  a  better  understanding  of  the  last  clause 
of  this  note.  I  have  positive  information  that  both  notes  were  read 
to  the  Senate  in  secret  session. 

The  situation  is  chaotic  just  now  and  intense  feeling  is  being  mani- 
fested in  the  debates  in  the  Senate.  -  Apparently  there  is  little  pros- 
pect that  the  treaty  will  be  ratified  without  modifications,  but  I  must 
still  hope  that  a  better  sentiment  will  be  brought  about  before  the  end. 
I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

A.  M.  Beaupre. 

1  The  telegrams  referred  to  were  aot  received  by  the  Department  of  State  until  August 
12,  16,  and  18,  respectively. 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  423 

[Inclosure  1.] 

Mr.  Beaupre  to  Doctor  Rico. 

Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Bogota,  August  5,  1903. 
His  excellency  Dr.  Luis  Carlos  Rico. 

Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs  of  the  Republic  of  Colombia. 

Sir  :  I  have  the  honor  to  inform  your  excellency  that  I  observe  with  regret 
the  terms  in  which  the  committee  of  the  Senate  has  seen  to  frame  their  report 
with  reference  to  the  Panama  Canal  treaty,  and  would  earnestly  request  your 
excellency  to  take  into  consideration  the  unfortunate  circumstance  of  inter- 
rupted cable  communication  which  has  prevented  my  immediate  consultation 
with  my  Government,  and  which  alone  has  decided  me  to  address  another  note 
to  your  excellency  in  further  interpretation  of  the  instructions  I  have  referred 
to  in  my  previous  notes  as  having  been  received  from  my  Government. 

It  would  appear  to  me  that  the  committee  has  either  been  insufficiently  ac- 
quainted with  the  contents  of  my  notes  dated  April  21  and  June  10,  1903,  or 
that  they  have  failed  to  attach  to  these  direct  communications  the  importance 
they  demand  as  definite  expressions  of  opinion  and  intention  on  the  part  of  my 
Government. 

From  them  it  is  clear  that  the  committee's  proposed  modification  of  article  1 
is  alone  tantamount  to  an  absolute  rejection  of  the  treaty.  I  feel  it  my  duty 
to  reiterate  the  opinion  I  have  before  expressed  to  your  excellency  that  my 
Government  will  not  consider  or  discuss  such  an  amendment  at  all. 

There  is  another  important  modification  suggested  by  the  committee  to  article 
13,  suppressing  the  forms  of  tribunals  there  provided.  I  deem  it  my  duty  again 
to  express  very  emphatically  my  opinion  that  this  also  will  not  be  acceptable  in 
any  case. 

The  other  modifications,  though  not  equally  serious  in  principle,  are  never- 
theless of  such  slight  value  to  the  interests  of  Colombia  that  they  do  not  war- 
rant the  risk  of  further  discussion  by  the  Senate  of  the  United  States;  even  in 
the  event,  which  I  consider  more  than  doubtful,  that  they  be  even  submitted  to 
that  body  by  my  Government,  since  all  such  amplifications  or  explanatory  items 
can  equally  well  be  given,  either  by  separate  emphatic  assurances  of  the  Gov- 
ernment itself,  or  be  the  subject  of  special  legislation  when  the  joint  commis- 
sion mentioned  in  the  treaty  shall  have  begun  its  official  existence. 

For  the  moment  disregarding  the  probable  correctness,  or  otherwise,  of  my 
convictions,  there  is  one  point  that  I  would  especially  urge  upon  your  excel- 
lency, and  that  is  that  the  Senate  should  be  reminded  of  the  dangerous  con- 
sequences to  the  whole  negotiations  that  the  undue  delay  hitherto  experienced 
in  arriving  at  conclusions  will  undoubtedly  produce  on  the  attitude  of  my  Gov- 
ernment. 

If  the  present  modifications  of  the  committee  constitute  really  the  final 
decision  that  is  likely  to  be  arrived  at  by  the  Congress  of  Colombia,  the  mat- 
ter should  be  voted  without  any  delay,  and  so  give  at  least  a  slight  opportunity 
to  my  Government  to  consider  the  matter  before  the  expiration  of  the  time  for 
exchange  of  ratifications  provided  in  the  treaty.  Less  than  this  can  not  be 
expected  by  my  Government,  which  in  good  faith  signed  the  pending  treaty 
more  than  six  months  ago,  and  promptly  ratified  it  without  modifications. 

I  take  this  opportunity  to  respectfully  reiterate  what  I  have  before  expressed 
to  your  excellency,  that  if  Colombia  really  desires  to  maintain  the  present 
friendly  relations  existing  between  the  two  countries,  and  at  the  same  time  se- 
cure to  herself  the  extraordinary  advantages  that  the  construction  of  the  canal 
in  her  territory  will  undoubtedly  produce,  if  backed  by  so  close  an  alliance  of 
national  interests  as  would  supervene  with  the  United  States,  the  pending 
treaty  should  be  ratified  exactly  in  its  present  form,  without  any  modifications 
whatever.  I  say  this  from  a  deep  conviction  that  my  Government  will  not  in 
any  case  accept  amendments. 

I  avail  myself  of  this  opportunity  to  renew,  etc., 

(Signed)  A.  M.  Beaupre. 


424  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

[Inclosure  2.] 

Mr.  Beaupre'  to  Doctor  Rico. 

Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Bogota,  August  5,  1903. 
His  Excellency  Dr.  Luis  Carlos  Rico, 

Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs  of  the  Republic  of  Colombia. 

Sir  :  I  have  the  honor  to  inform  your  excellency  that  in  the  matter  of  the 
pending  treaty  for  the  construction  of  the  Panama  Canal  it  has  hitherto  been 
impossible  for  me  to  do  more  than  advise  you  of  the  construction  I  have  from 
time  to  time  put  upon  the  instructions  received  from  my  Government  in  more  or 
less  general  terms,  as  the  various  questions  involved  had  not  been  brought  to  a 
definite  issue. 

Now  referring  to  my  several  notes  on  this  subject,  it  is  a  matter  for  great 
satisfaction  to  me  that  to-day,  together  with  the  publication  of  the  Senate  com- 
mittee's report  on  the  treaty,  I  have  received  such  definite  instructions  from  my 
Government  as  enable  me  not  only  fully  to  confirm,  but  materially  amplify  the 
terms  of  all  my  previous  notes  above  alluded  to. 

I  may  say  that  the  antecedent  circumstances  of  the  whole  negotiation  of  the 
canal  treaty,  from  official  information  in  the  hands  of  my  Government,  are  of 
such  a  nature  as  to  fully  warrant  the  United  States  in  considering  any  modifi- 
cation whatever  of  the  terms  of  the  treaty  as  practically  a  breach  of  faith  on  the 
part  of  the  Government  of  Colombia,  such  as  may  involve  the  very  greatest  com- 
plications in  the  friendly  relations  which  have  hitherto  existed  between  the  two 
countries. 

I  am  instructed  to  say  that  my  Government  has  no  right  to  covenant  with 
Colombia  to  impose  new  financial  obligations  upon  the  canal  company,  and  that 
the  President  would  not  submit  to  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  any  amend- 
ment in  that  sense,  but  would  treat  it  as  voiding  the  negotiation,  and  as  a  failure 
to  conclude  a  satisfactory  treaty  with  Colombia.  The  amendment  to  Article  I 
of  the  treaty  proposed  by  the  Senate  committee  is  clearly  in  that  sense. 

I  am  also  instructed  to  say  that  no  additional  payment  by  the  United  States 
can  in  any  case  hope  for  approval  by  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.  "What  I 
said  to  your  excellency  in  my  note  of  this  morning,  with  reference  to  the  minor 
amendments  proposed  by  the  committee,  I  can  now  emphasize  in  the  language 
of  my  instructions,  that  any  amendment  whatever  requiring  consideration  by 
that  body  (the  Senate)  would  most  certainly  imperil  the  treaty's  consumma- 
tion. Your  excellency's  Government  and  Congress  should  realize  the  great  risk 
of  ruining  the  negotiation  by  improvident  amendment. 

It  is  impossible  for  me  to  express  to  your  excellency  more  emphatically  the 
attitude  of  my  Government  on  this  important  matter,  or  to  implore  more 
earnestly  than  I  now  do  the  careful  consideration  by  Colombia  of  the  reasons 
which  in  the  opinion  of  my  Government  should  impel  your  excellency's  Govern- 
ment to  urge  upon  Congress  the  necessity  of  ratifying  the  treaty  in  its  present 
form. 

It  is  to  be  regretted  that  the  reference  to  the  necessity  for  the  practical  re- 
enactment  of  the  treaty  of  1S46-184S  in  the  Senate  committee's  report  should 
constitute  almost  a  doubt  as  to  the  good  faith  of  the  intention  of  the  United 
States  in  its  compliance  therewith.  I  must  assure  your  excellency  that  unless 
that  treaty  be  denounced  in  accordance  with  its  own  provisions  my  Government 
is  not  capable  of  violating  it.  either  in  letter  or  spirit;  nor  should  there  be  any 
fear  on  the  part  of  Colombia  that  if  ratified  the  clauses  guaranteeing  her  sov- 
ereignty in  the  pending  treaty,  coucbed  as  they  are  in  still  more  precise  and 
solemn  terms  than  those  of  1846,  will  ever  be  disregarded  in  the  slightest  degree 
by  the  Government  of  the  United  States. 

I  avail  myself  of  this  opportunity,  etc. 

(Signed)  A.  M.  Beaupre. 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  425 

Mr.  Beaupre  to  the  /Secretary  of  State. 

No.  101.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Bogota,  August  10, 1903. 
Sir  :  Referring  to  my  No.  98  of  the  7th  instant,  I  have  the  honor  to 
inclose  herewith  a  copy  and  translation  of  a  note  from  the  minister 
for  foreign  affairs,  together  with  a  copy  of  my  reply  thereto. 
I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

A.  M.  Beaupre. 


[Inclosure  1. — Translation.] 

Dr.  Rico  to  Air.  Beaupre". 

Ministry  for  Foreign  Relations, 

Bogota,  August  8.  1908. 

Mr.  Minister  :  One  of  your  attentive  communications  which  your  excellency 
had  the  pleasure  to  address  to  me  on  the  5th  of  the  present  month,  relative  to 
the  business  of  the  Interoceanic  Canal  of  Panama,  contained  the  part  which  I 
take  the  liberty  to  quote  as  follows : 

"  I  may  say  that  the  antecedent  circumstances  of  the  whole  negotiation  of  the 
canal  treaty,  from  official  information  in  the  hands  of  my  Government,  are  of 
such  a  nature  as  to  fully  warrant  the  United  States  in  considering  any  modifica- 
tion of  the  terms  of  that  treaty  as  practically  a  breach  of  faith  on  the  part  of 
the  Government  of  Colombia,  such  as  may  involve  the  very  greatest  complica- 
tions in  the  friendly  relations  which  have  hitherto  existed  between  the  two 
countries." 

Wishing  to  give  to  your  excellency  as  soon  as  possible  the  required  answer  to 
the  two  notes  to  which  I  refer  in  the  present.  I  will  appreciate  it  if  you  will 
inform  me  that  if  among  the  circumstances  alluded  to  in  the  paragraph,  a  ver- 
sion of  which  I  have  transcribed,  there  exist  any  others  not  mentioned  in  the 
notes  which  your  excellency  has  seen  fit  to  address  to  me  on  this  subject. 

With  this  motive  I  renew  to  your  excellency  the  assurance  of  my  highest 
consideration. 

(Signed)  Luis  Carlos  Rico. 

His  Excellency  A.  M.  Baupre, 

Envoy  Extraordinary  and  Minister  Plenipotentiary  of  the  United  States. 


[Inclosure  2.] 
Mr.  Beaupr6  to  Doctor  Rico. 

Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Bogota,  August  8.  1903. 
His  Excellency  Dr.  Luis  Carlos  Rico. 

Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs  of  the  Republic  of  Colombia. 

Sir  :  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  receipt  of  your  excellency's  courteous 
note  of  to-day,  quoting  a  paragraph  of  my  note  of  the  5th  instant,  and  asking 
if  the  statement  therein  contained  is  based  upon  information  not  mentioned  in 
my  previous  notes. 

In  reply  I  have  the  honor  to  inform  your  excellency  that  the  antecedent  cir- 
cumstances to  which  I  made  reference  are  fully  outlined  in  my  previous  notes, 
and  particularly  in  the  one  of  June  10,  1903. 

If  your  excellency  will  permit  me  a  few  words  more  on  this  subject  I  would 
like  to  refer  to  the  extraordinary  efforts  made  by  my  Government  to  keep  faith 
with  Colombia  after  an  agreement  had  been  reached  between  the  executive 
Governments  of  the  two  nations. 

As  your  excellency  is  aware,  when  the  canal  convention  was  presented  to  the 
Senate  of  the  United  States  it  encountered  the  most  violent  opposition.     Not 


426  DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

only  were  strenuous  efforts  made  to  defeat  the  treaty  in  its  entirety,  but  many 
amendments  of  varying  degrees  of  importance  were  presented  and  urged.  Dur- 
ing all  that  period  the  friends  of  the  Government  were  steadfast  in  their  deter- 
mination to  uphold  the  action  of  the  Executive  and  to  preserve  intact  the 
agreement  made  with  Colombia.  It  was  a  momentous  struggle,  and  the  final 
and  close  victory  was  secured  in  the  end  only  by  the  most  stupendous  efforts 
on  the  part  of  the  administration,  imbued  as  they  were  with  the  idea  that  such 
a  compact,  made  after  mature  and  careful  consideration  by  the  executive 
departments  of  the  two  Governments,  must  be  ratified  as  it  stood. 

In  view  of  the  foregoing,  it  is  absolutely  believed  by  my  Government  that 
any  modification,  as  such,  to  the  pending  treaty  could  not  be  safely  submitted 
to  the  present  Senate. 

The  intense  feeling  over  large  sections  of  the  United  States  in  favor  of  the 
Nicaragua  route  on  the  one  hand  and  interests  on  the  other  hand  hostile  to  any 
canal  at  all,  and  especially  the  Panama  route,  are  circumstances  that,  I  fear, 
your  excellency's  Government  and  the  people  of  Colombia  have  not  weighed 
sufficiently  to  attach  to  them  the  importance  they  deserve. 

While  my  previous  notes  may  have  expressed  an  almost  exaggerated  desire 
to  impress  upon  your  excellency  the  dangers  of  delay  or  modification  of  any 
kind,  they  were  inspired  by  a  full  knowledge  of  conditions  in  my  own  country, 
which  I  feared  would  not  be  fully  appreciated  in  Colombia. 

The  condition  which  appears  to  me  to  be  absolute,  at  least,  is  that  the  pro- 
posed treaty  should  be  ratified  as  it  is,  in  good  faith  with  my  Government,  or 
the  opportunity  will  be  lost  for  any  later  negotiations  of  any  kind  whatever. 

In  my  own  behalf,  I  most  earnestly  desire  to  assure  your  excellency  that, 
aside  from  fulfilling  the  instructions  of  my  Government,  I  have  the  deepest 
personal  concern  in  the  honor  and  glory  of  the  country  to  which  I  am  accredited, 
and  in  which  I  have  been  extended  so  much  kindness  and  consideration.  Every 
conviction  of  my  mind  leads  me  to  the  belief  that  enormous  aggrandizement 
must  accrue  to  Colombia  if  an  interoceanic  canal  be  constructed  through  her 
territory,  while  the  desire  to  bring  the  two  countries  into  closer  and  lasting 
friendship  is  ever  present.  Feeling  thus  deeply  every  effort  I  may  have  made, 
or  shall  make  to  this  end,  has  or  will  have  as  its  incentive  the  ultimate  good 
not  only  of  the  country  which  I  represent  but  of  that  in  which  I  have  the 
privilege  and  pleasure  of  residing. 

I  avail  myself  of  this  opportunity  to  renew,  etc. 

(Signed)  A.  M.  Beaupr£. 


Mr  Loomis  to  Mr.  Beaupre. 

[Telegram.] 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  August  10, 1903. 
Keep  the  department  advised  and  embody  date  in  messages. 

Loomis,  Acting. 


Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

[Telegram.] 

Bogota,  August  10, 1903.     (Received  15.) 
August  12,  7  p.  m.     The  treaty  was  rejected  by  the  Senate  to-day 
in  its  entirety.    Confidential.    Do  not  accept  this  as  final.     There  is 
still  some  hope.    Wait  for  further  advices. 

Beaupre. 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  427 

Mr.  Beau  pre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

[Telegram.] 

United  States  Legation, 
Bogota,  August  12,  1903.  (Received  23.) 
August  12,  9  p.  m.  Referring  to  my  telegram  of  August  12, 7  p.  m.. 
I  do  not  believe  that  rejection  of  treaty  is  final,  for  the  following 
reasons:  Yesterday's  debate  and  vote  was  undoubtedly  previously 
arranged.  This  I  believe  both  from  the  tone  of  the  debate  and  from 
information  which  I  had  already  received  through  persons  of  high 
influence.  Debate  lasted  five  hours.  All  communications  between 
myself  and  the  Colombian  Government  read.  The  fact  that  the  Gov- 
ernment of  the  United  States  can  not  accept  modifications  or  delay 
was  made  clear  to  the  Senate.  The  most  important  speech  made  was 
that  of  General  Ospina.  It  was  to  the  effect  that  while  desiring 
canal  he  could  not  give  his  vote  for  the  ratification  of  the  treaty 
because  the  terms  were  contrary  to  the  provisions  of  the  constitution. 
He  implied  that  to  bring  negotiations  to  a  conclusion  the  constitution 
should  be  modified,  so  as  to  allow  negotiations  to  be  brought  to  a 
successful  conclusion  without  prejudice  to  the  honor  of  the  country. 
He  stated  also  that  to  effect  this  no  delay  was  necessary,  as  two 
debates  will  be  sufficient  for  the  purpose;  he  intimated  that  the 
Congress  should  be  immediately  dismissed  by  a  decree  for  the  pur- 
pose of  modifying  the  constitution.  Upon  that  a  new  law  will  be 
passed  authorizing  the  Executive,  without  further  recourse  to  Con- 
gress, to  conclude  a  canal  treaty  with  the  United  States.  Should 
this  prove  true  the  text  of  the  present  treaty  could  be  accepted  with- 
out hesitation.  By  this  means  Congress  will  be  able  to  conclude 
negotiations  without  individual  senators  publicly  speaking  in  favor 
of  it. 

Beatjpre. 


Mr.  Beawpve  to  Mr.  Hay. 

f  Telegram.! 

United  States  Legation, 

Bogota.  August  12.  1903.     (Received  19.) 
August  12,  10  p.  m.     Confidential.     [-  -]  called  to  inform 

me  that  this  day's  action  of  Congress  was  in  accordance  with  plans 
perfected  by  the  Government  and  influential  Senators  and  citizens 
in  the  belief  that  the  treaty  could  not  now  be  passed  without  amend- 
ments, but  that  within  very  short  time  such  a  reaction  public  senti- 
ment can  be  created  as  will  enable  the  President  to  present  the  treaty 
again  to  the  Senate  and  secure  its  passage  without  amendments.  I 
have  been  aware  of  such  a  movement  for  some  days,  hence  my  tele- 
gram advising  that  there  was  still  hope. 

[ ]  asks  if  you  will  give  two  weeks  more  for  the  consum- 
mation of  this  plan  before  taking  other  action,  and  requests  imme- 
diate reply.  He  doubts  whether  the  constitution  can  be  amended  in 
time,  and  thinks  it  is  not  necessary. 

Beaupre. 


428  DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

Mr.  Loomis  to  Mr.  Beaupre. 

[Telegram.] 

Department  or  State, 

Washington,  August  13, 1903. 
Have  you  received  department  cable  of  July  31?     Amendments 
suggested  in  your  cable  of  the  5th  would  be  fatal  to  treaty. 

Loomis,  Acting. 

Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

No.  105.]  ,     Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Bogota,  August  15,  1903. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  report  that  the  most  intensely  critical 
period  for  the  canal  treaty  seems  to  have  passed,  and  that  now  there 
is  some  hope  for  a  satisfactory  conclusion.  Since  the  rejection  of  the 
treaty  on  the  12th  instant  there  has  been  an  almost  hysterical  condi- 
tion of  alarm  and  uncertainty  in  Bogota  as  to  the  future  action  of 
the  United  States.  Yesterday  there  was  a  widely  circulated  report 
that  United  States  troops  had  landed  on  the  Isthmus.  When,  finally, 
large  posters  were  put  up  all  over  the  city,  announcing  that  because 
of  a  desire  to  maintain  the  most  cordial  relations  with  the  United 
States,  a  joint  committee  would  be  appointed  by  Congress  to  confer 
as  to  the  way  and  means  of  an  agreement  for  the  construction  of  a 
canal,  I  am  certain  that  there  was  a  genuine  feeling  of  relief. 

When  the  report  of  the  special  committee  of  the  Senate  was  pre- 
pared and  I  had  positive  information  that  twenty  of  the  twenty-seven 
votes  in  the  Senate  had  been  secured  to  pass  it,  I  knew  at  once  that 
such  action  would  be  fatal;  and  there  being  no  cable  communication 
to  permit  of  instructions  from  you.  I  determined  upon  a  course  of 
energetic  action  which,  while  it  might  seriously  lessen  my  popularity 
here  and  seem  undiplomatic  unless  viewed  in  the  light  of  the  exi- 
gency and  the  circumstances,  resulted  in  my  two  notes  of  the  5th  in- 
stant and  one  of  the  8th  instant  to  the  minister  for  foreign  affairs. 
These  notes  were  as  strong  and  incisive  as  I  could  make  them,  with 
no  attempt  to  disguise  in  suave  phrases  the  fact  that  there  was  no 
probability  that  the  United  States  Senate  would  accept  the  amend- 
ments proposed  by  the  committee.  Whether  or  not  I  was  justified 
in  writing  such  strong  notes  is  best  judged  in  the  light  of  events,  for 
they  accomplished  what  I  deemed  to  be  necessary,  and  no  other 
course  could  have  prevented  the  adoption  of  the  report  of  the  com- 
mittee. 

Some  of  the  newspapers  and  members  of  Congress  are  expressing 
dissatisfaction  with  what  they  term  my  dictatorial  attitude,  but  I  do 
not  consider  this  important,  provided  a  satisfactory  treaty  is  finally 
ratified,  which  now  seems  probable. 

When  action  was  taken  on  the  12th  instant  no  one  in  authority 
believed  that  it  was  final.  Aside  from  the  tone  of  the  public  debate, 
which  would  indicate  this  to  the  public,  the  senators  had  come  to  an 
agreement  some  days  before  as  to  the  policy  to  be  pursued.  Because 
of  the  apparent  fatality  of  the  amendments  proposed,  it  seems  to  have 
been  thought  best  by  those  in  charge  (and  I  was  so  informed  about 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA  CANAL.  429 

the  10th  instant) ,  in  view  of  the  present  state  of  public  opinion,  to  re- 
ject the  treaty  in  the  first  debate,  and  then,  believing  that  there  would 
be  a  reaction  of  this  public  opinion,  to  resort  to  some  coup  to  get  the 
treaty  again  before  Congress  and  pass  it. 

Apparently  the  manner  of  getting  at  this  has  not  been  definitely 
determined,  for  there  are  various  ideas  of  ways  and  means. 

General  Ospina,  the  chairman  of  the  new  committee,  stated  to  a 
friend  of  mine  yesterday  that  the  main  objections  to  the  treaty  rested 
upon  lawful  or  constitutional  grounds.  That  the  treaty  was  not 
unconstitutional,  but  contrary  to  law  2  of  1886  and  law  153  of  1887. 
That  the  committee  could  recommend  an  anulment  of  these  laws, 
which,  if  done,  would  permit  the  ratification  of  the  treaty,  with  some 
trivial  amendment  intended  to  soothe  the  apparent  inconsistency  of 
the  two  votes.  That  the  action  of  the  12th  instant  was  taken  on  the 
minority  report  of  the  committee,  and  the  majority  report  could  still 
be  called  up  and  a  reconsideration  had. 

General  Valencia,  a  senator  and  lawyer  of  reputation,  says  that  the 
treaty  is  not  unconstitutional,  except  with  reference  to  the  appoint- 
ment of  United  States  tribunals  on  the  Isthmus,  which  is  not  highly 
important;  that  it  is  not  necessary  to  annul  laws,  because  the  treaty 
itself  would  become  a  superseding  law  if  passed ;  that  the  only  thing 
to  look  to  was  to  get  enough  votes  to  pass  the  treaty  when  it  again 
came  before  the  Senate. 

The  feasible  scheme,  however,  and  the  one  most  generally  talked  of 
as  being  likely  to  be  adopted,  is  to  frame  a  law  authorizing  the  execu- 
tive to  continue  and  finish  the  negotiations  for  a  canal  without  further 
recourse  to  Congress. 

Whatever  may  be  the  means  determined  upon,  it  is  altogether 
probable  that  the  report  of  the  joint  committee  will  be  passed  when 
presented. 

There  is  a  seeming  of  good  intentions  in  this  movement,  and  yet  I 
can  not  forget  that  there  has  never  been  a  favorable  word  said  for  the 
treaty  in  the  Senate,  nor  in  fact  has  it  been  discussed  at  all,  and  there 
is  little  evidence  of  a  desire  to  treat  the  matter  with  open  good  faith 
to  the  United  States. 

The  first  weeks  of  the  session  were  devoted  to  the  discussion  of  the 
question  as  to  whether  the  vice  president  must  sign  the  treaty  before 
it  was  considered  by  the  Senate.  In  other  words,  an  attempt  of  the 
vice  president's  political  enemies  to  place  the  responsibility  for  the 
negotiations  upon  him,  which  he  declined  to  assume.  When  this  point 
was  settled  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  Government  and  the  burden 
was  apparently  placed  upon  Congress,  came  the  appointment  of  the 
special  committee  of  one  member  from  each  of  the  nine  departments 
of  the  Republic,  who  consumed  nearly  three  weeks  in  their  delibera- 
tions, and  then  reported  recommending  the  nine  amendments,  which 
I  immediately  cabled  to  you. 

The  first  (and  only)  debate  upon  the  committee's  report  occurred  on 
the  12th  instant,  and  that  you  may  understand  how  the  matter  has 
been  treated  I  will  give  a  summary  of  that  day's  proceedings: 

Senator  Marroquin  (son  of  the  vice  president)  moved. that  the  de- 
bate be  preceded  by  the  reading  of  the  correspondence  which  had 
passed  between  the  United  States  minister  and  the  minister  for  for- 
eign affairs  on  the  canal  negotiations. 


430  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA   CANAL. 

Senator  Caro  gave  notice  of  a  law  he  would  move,  containing  two 
clauses,  viz: 

(1)  To  reject  the  Hay-Herran  treaty. 

(2)  That  the  United  States  Government  be  informed  that  the  Con- 
gress of  Colombia  meant  no  manifestation  of  hostility  by  this  act, 
nor  any  antagonism  to  the  construction  of  a  canal  by  the  United 
States. 

The  correspondence  above  refererd  to  was  then  read. 

My  memorandum  and  notes-  in  which  I  pointed  out  that  the  Colom- 
bian Government  did  not  apparently  realize  the  gravity  of  the  situa- 
tion, and  that  if  Colombia  should  now  reject  the  treaty  or  unduly 
delay  its  ratification  the  friendly  understanding  between  the  two 
countries  would  be  so  seriously  compromised  that  action  might  be 
taken  by  our  Congress  next  winter  which  every  friend  of  Colombia 
would  regret,  was  received  with  loud  murmurs  of  disapproval  by  the 
densely  packed  gallery.  The  minister  for  foreign  affairs'  replies, 
read  mostly  by  himself,  were,  on  the  other  hand,  greeted  with  ap- 
plause. 

Besides  the  above,  the  tenor  of  my  notes  was  (a)  that  any  modifi- 
cations would  be  fatal;  (b)  that  any  modifications  affecting  the 
arrangements  with  the  Panama  Canal  and  Kailway  companies  would 
not  be  accepted.  The  minister's  replies  were  to  the  effect  that  the 
Government  was  bound  to  submit  the  treaty  to  the  Congress,  and 
that  in  the  event  of  its  not  passing  that  body  he  understood  that  the 
United  States  would  proceed  to  the  negotiation  with  Nicaragua; 
but  that  he  did  not  see  that  the  refusal  to  ratify  the  treaty  could  in 
any  way  alter  the  friendly  relations  existing  between  Colombia  and 
the  United  States. 

Senator  Caro  vehemently  attacked  the  Government  for  its  attitude 
in  the  conducting  of  the  negotiations.  He  taunted  the  minister  for 
foreign  affairs  for  his  action  in  having  the  correspondence  between 
the  United  States  minister  and  himself  read  as  an  attempt  to  elude 
the  responsibility  resting  on  the  Government,  and  to  cover  it  by 
courting  the  applause  of  the  gallery  as  the  champion  of  the  rights 
of  the  Colombian  Senate;  rights  which,  he  said,  had  never  been 
called  in  question  by  the  United  States  minister. 

This,  same  attitude  was  taken  by  Senator  Arango,  in  a  short  speech. 

The  minister  for  foreign  affairs  then  went  through  the  whole  his- 
tory of  the  negotiations,  beginning  with  the  project  of  an  inter- 
oceanic  canal  first  made.  He  gave  a  detailed  resume  of  the  whole 
De  Lesseps  scheme,  and  its  subsequent  failure,  and  deduced  the  fol- 
lowing conclusion :  That  the  present  situation,  as  shown  by  the  his- 
tory of  antecedent  schemes  and  negotiations,  was  that  Colombia  must 
choose  one  of  two  things — either  the  whole  scheme  of  a  Panama 
Canal  must  be  abandoned,  or  Colombia  must  hand  the  undertaking 
over  to  the  United  States.  Feelers  had  been  thrown  out  which  had 
proved  that  no  other  power  or  entity  would  under  any  circumstances 
take  the  project  in  hand.  The  concession,  therefore,  if  given  to  any- 
body, must  be  given  to  the  United  States  Government.  But  this  face 
must  not  be  lost  sight  of.  that  the  United  States  Government  would 
not  even  consider  the  cutting  of  a  canal  which  should  not  be  its  own 
canal.  The  minister  then  made  reference  to  the  notes  which  had 
passed  between  him  and  the  legation  of  the  United   States.     The 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA  CANAL.  431 

result  of  that  correspondence  was  that  the  Colombian  Congress  found 
itself  in  the  dilemma  of  either  accepting  the  treaty  as  it  stands  or 
losing  all  hope  of  seeing  the  great  work  cut  through  Colombian  ter- 
ritory. He  concluded  by  expressing  the  hope  that,  in  discussing  this 
matter,  the  Senate  would  strictly  limit  itself  to  the  points  at  issue. 
The  Government  had  done  what  it  could  in  the  matter.  The  negotia- 
tions had  been  initiated  by  the  ablest  of  their  statesmen,  Dr.  Martinez 
Silva,  and  the  treaty,  even  as  it  now  stood,  bore  the  impress  of  that 
initiatory  work.  The  Government  had,  moreover,  left  the  decision 
of  the  issue  to  the  free  judgment  of  the  country,  and  had  exerted  no 
influence  whatever  upon  public  opinion,  when  it  could  have  passed 
the  measure  through  by  the  use  of  dictatorial  measures.  (This 
evoked  marked  disapprobatory  murmurs  from  the  gallery.) 

Senator  Marroquin  then  made  a  short  speech  to  the  effect  that  the 
question  turned  on  the  acceptance  or  nonacceptance  of  the  treaty,  and 
not  on  questions  of  government  policy,  brought  in  by  honorable  sen- 
ators, and  which  were  foreign  to  the  discussion. 

A  speech  by  Gen.  Pedro  Nel  Ospina  then  followed,  in  which  he 
blamed  the  minister  for  foreign  affairs  for  having  in  a  note  given  the 
United  States  minister  the  opportunity  of  raising  the  question  as  to 
whether  or  not  his  Government  would  accept  any  modifications.  He 
said  the  minister's  position  reminded  him  of  the  man  who,  on  being 
told  by  an  alcalde  that  he  must  furnish  three  horses  for  the  use  of  the 
Government,  turned,  as  he  was  leaving  the  room,  and  inquired: 
"  Must  I  furnish  saddles,  also?"  To  which  the  alcalde  replied :  "  Cer- 
tainly !"  He  also  said  that,  outside  of  the  question  as  to  whether  he 
did  or  did  not  favor  the  canal  treaty  as  it  stood,  he  could  not,  in  view 
of  the  existing  laws  of  the  country,  give  his  vote  for  its  ratification. 
That  the  Congress  should,  in  his  opinion,  first  so  amend  the  laws  of 
the  country  as  to  enable  the  Colombian  Government  to  come  to  an 
agreement  with  that  of  the  United  States  in  a  manner  honorable  to 
both  countries. 

Senator  Eodriguez  spoke  in  the  same  sense,  expressing  his  advocacy 
of  the  construction  of  a  canal  and  his  friendly  disposition  toward  the 
Government  of  the  United  States.  He  should,  however,  as  privately 
agreed  upon,  give  a  negative  vote  on  this  occasion. 

And  thus  ended  the  only  debate  ever  had  in  the  Colombian  Senate 
on  the  canal  treaty. 

A  vote  was  taken  at  6.30  p.  m.,  and  every  senator  present  was 
recorded  as  voting  against  the  ratification  of  the  treaty. 

As  I  have  on  many  occasions  informed  you,  ratification  has  seemed 
almost  hopeless  from  the  beginning  without  the  active  influence  of  the 
Government,  and  this  it  has  never  used.  The  Nationalists,  under  the 
lead  of  Senator  Caro,  have  been  too  deeply  concerned  in  their  efforts 
to  belittle  the  Government  to  consider  the  merits  of  the  treaty  at  all. 
The  Liberals,  while  not  represented  in  Congress,  are  the  most  active 
factors  in  creating  public  opinion,  and  have  taken  an  almost  identical 
position.  The  coffee  planters  and  exporters,  who  think  their  business 
would  be  ruined  by  low  foreign  exchange,  have  been  unpatriotic 
enough  to  place  personal  interests  above  national  good,  and  have  been 
against  the  treaty  because  the  $10,000,000  once  paid  Colombia  would 
send  exchange  so  low  that  coffee  could  not  be  exported  from  the  in- 
terior.    Even  the  Panama   representatives   have  lately  become   so 


432  DIPLOMATIC   HISTOEY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

thoroughly  imbued  with  the  idea  of  an  independent  republic  that 
they  have  been  more  or  less  indifferent  to  the  fate  of  the  treaty. 

As  a  matter  of  fact  the  treaty,  as  such,  has  had  no  active  friends  or 
supporters,  and  if  it  is  ratified  at  all  it  will  be  because  of  the  strong 
attitude  taken  by  the  United  States  and  the  earnest  repetition  of  the 
statement  that  the  friendly  understanding  between  the  two  countries 
depended  upon  it. 

It  has  been  a  difficult  and  trying  situation  from  the  first,  rendered 
more  so  by  the  interruption  of  cable  communication,  and  one  in  which 
a  strong,  rather  than  a  velvet  hand,  was  imperative. 

I  await  the  consummation  with  some  hope  and  much  distrust. 
I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

A.  M.  Beaupre. 


Mr.  Loomis  to  Mr.  Beaupre. 

[Telegram.] 

Department  of  State, 

August  15,  1903. 
Cable  additional  information  concerning  rejection  of  treaty  as  soon 
as  possible. 

Loomis,  Acting. 


Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

[Telegram.] 

United  States  Legation, 
Bogota,  August  15,  1903.  (Received  August  23.) 
August  15,  1  p.  m.  Prominent  senator  says  that  the  vote  on  Wed- 
nesday was  upon  the  minority  report  of  the  committee;  hence  it  is 
believed  reconsideration  possible  on  the  line  of  majority  report  Thurs- 
day. Senate  appointed  new  committee  of  three,  General  Ospina. 
chairman,  in  cooperation  with  similar  committee  appointed  Friday  by 
Chamber  of  Representatives,  to  report  as  joint  committee  of  both 
Houses.  The  appearance  is  a  disposition  to  find  the  means  of  ratify- 
ing the  treaty.     The  committee  seems  one  that  will  work  to  that  end. 

Beaupre. 


Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

No.  107.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Bogota,  August  17,  1903. 
Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  send  you  inclosed  copies  and  translations 
of  two  notes  from  the  minister  for  foreign  affairs  in  regard  to  the 
Panama  Canal  treaty. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

A.  M.  Beaupre. 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OP   THE   PANAMA  CANAL.  433 

[Inclosure  1. — Translation.] 
Doctor  Rico  to  Mr.  Beaupre. 

Minister  of  Foreign  Relations, 

Bogotd,  August  11,  1903. 

Mr.  Minister:  In  your  polite  note  written  the  8th  of  the  present  month,  in 
answer  to  the  one  I  had  the  honor  to  address  to  you  on  the  same  date,  your  ex- 
cellency has  been  pleased  to  inform  me  that  your  previous  notes  have  fully 
defined  the  antecedent  circumstances  which,  as  it  appears  from  one  of  the  two 
notes  of  your  excellency  of  date  of  the  5th  instant,  "  attended  the  whole  negotia- 
tion of  the  canal  treaty,"  and  according  to  the  same  note,  "  are  of  such  a  nature 
as  to  fully  warrant  the  United  States  in  considering  as  a  violation  of  the  pact 
any  modification  whatever  of  the  conditions  stipulated  in  the  treaty,  such  as 
may  cause  the  gravest  complications  in  the  friendly  relations  which  have 
hitherto  existed  between  the  two  countries." 

The  said  note  makes  special  reference  to  your  excellency's  note  of  June  10 
last,  which  deals  with  the  permission  the  canal  company  and  the  Panama  Rail- 
road Company  must  obtain  in  order  to  transfer  their  respective  concessions.  I 
answered  said  note  on  the  27th  of  that  month  and  stated  to  your  excellency  that 
in  order  to  determine  the  meaning  of  article  1  of  the  treaty,  Congress  would 
have  to  consult  the  antecedents  of  the  negotiation,  among  which  were  included 
the  notes  of  the  minister  of  "  hacienda  "  dated  December  25  and  27,  1902,  and 
an  extract  from  the  memorandum  addressed  to  his  excellency  the  Secretary  of 
State  on  the  22d  of  November  of  the  same  year  by  the  Colombian  legation  in 
Washington. 

In  the  opinion  of  the  Colombian  Government  the  view  expressed  by  your  excel- 
lency's Government  that  the  circumstances  attending  the  whole  negotiation  of 
the  canal  treaty  are  of  such  a  nature  as  would  fully  authorize  the  United  States 
in  considering  as  a  violation  of  the  pact  any  modification  whatever  of  the  con- 
ditions of  the  treaty  is  not  compatible  with  diplomatic  usages  nor  with  the  ex- 
press stipulation  of  article  28  of  the  same  convention. 

In  fact,  plenipotentiaries  in  concluding  public  treaties  propose  and  accept  con- 
ditions with  the  purpose  of  facilitating  the  negotiation  which  is  not  final  except 
by  means  of  ratification,  which  in  republics  is  vested  in  the  executive  power  with 
the  concurrence,  direct  or  indirect,  of  some  other  high  power  of  state. 

This  doctrine  is  expressly  recognized  in  the  said  article  28,  which  reads: 
"  This  convention  when  signed  by  the  contracting  parties,  which  shall  be  ratified 
according  to  the  laws  of  the  respective  countries,  and  shall  be  exchanged  in 
Washington  within  a  term  of  eight  months  from  this  month,  or  earlier  if 
possible." 

Under  that  article  the  Government  of  the  United  States  submitted  the  treaty 
to  the  Senate  for  its  approval,  and  the  Government  of  Colombia  has  had  to  do 
the  same  in  respect  to  its  Congress.  The  former  proceeded  in  conformity  to  a 
constitutional  provision,  and  the  latter  adopted  analogous  proceedings,  because, 
according  to  paragraph  10  of  article  120  of  the  constitution,  the  power  of 
making  treaties  with  foreign  powers  is  qualified  by  the  necessity  of  submitting 
them  to  the  approval  of  Congress;  so  that  the  convention  for  the  opening  of 
the  canal  must,  in  order  to  be  ratified  in  accordance  with  the  laws  of  Colombia, 
as  stipulated  in  said  article  28,  be  ratified  by  the  Congress ;  and  the  obtention 
of  such  approval,  with  or  without  amendments,  could  not  have  been  a  matter 
for  agreement  in  any  of  the  circumstances  which  attended  the  negotiation  and 
to  which  your  excellency  refers  when  you  say  that  any  modification  of  the 
terms  or  any  delay  in  the  exchange  of  ratifications  would  be  considered  a  viola- 
tion of  the  stipulated  conditions.  If  my  Government  had  entered  into  that 
agreement  your  excellency  would  have  said  so  in  your  note  of  the  Sth  instant,  by 
which  you  were  pleased  to  explain  the  paragraph  in  which  those  circumstances 
are  discussed. 

Your  excellency  tells  me  that  when  the  canal  convention  was  presented  to 
the  Senate  of  the  United  States  it  met  there  the  most  violent  opposition;  that 
not  onjy  were  the  strongest  efforts  made  to  reject  it  as  a  whole,  but  that  many 
amendments  more  or  less  important  were  proposed  for  immediate  discussion, 
and  that  the  final  and  definite  victory  was  only  attained  after  the  most  strenu- 
ous efforts  on  the  part  of  the  friends  of  the  administration,  convinced  as  they 
were  that  it  ought  to  be  ratified  without  any  alteration. 

42112— S.  Doc.  474,  63-2 28 


434  DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

The  course  of  the  honorable  Senators  who  proposed  the  modifications  makes 
it  clear  that  they  used  their  constitutional  rights  in  proposing  changes  in  the 
conditions  of  the  pact,  without  any  reason  to  consider  that  the  Government  of 
the  United  States  was  bound  to  approve  the  treaty  without  modifications,  as 
has  been  claimed  in  regard  to  the  Government  of  Colombia. 

I  suppose  that  your  excellency's  Government  has  never  denied  to  the  Senate 
the  right  to  introduce  modifications  in  the  international  pacts,  and  that  this 
right  has  the  same  legal  force  as  that -of  approving  or  disapproving  public 
treaties,  and  I  understand  that  the  Senate  has  exercised  its  right  to  propose 
modifications  not  only  in  this  case,  but  also  in  others,  as  I  pointed  out  to  your 
excellency  in  my  contra  memorandum  of  June  18,  in  connection  with  the 
project  of  convention  dated  November  28,  1902,  between  the  United  States  and 
Great  Britain,  for  the  abrogation  of  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty  of  1850. 

The  Colombian  Government,  fully  aware  that  justice  and  equity  govern  the 
course  of  the  United  States  in  its  relations  with  all  powers,  and  that  its  respect 
for  the  autonomy  of  the  Spanish-American  countries  is  a  substantial  guaranty 
of  the  stability  and  independence  of  those  nations,  is  confident  that  the  princi- 
ples which  I  have  adduced  in  favor  of  the  right  which  the  Colombian  Congress 
has,  not  only  to  propose  modifications  to  the  convention  for  the  opening  of  the 
canal,  but  also  to  refuse  its  approval,  can  not  but  convince  your  excellency's 
Government  that  the  exercise  of  that  right  can  not  in  any  manner  entail  compli- 
cations, great  or  small,  in  the  relations  of  the  two  countries,  which  it  is  to  be 
hoped  will  continue  on  the  same  equal  footing  and  in  the  same  good  under- 
standing which  has  happily  existed  until  now.  and  that  they  will  facilitate  the 
removal  of  the  difficulties  which  have  retarded  the  final  agreement,  the  result 
of  which  is  to  accomplish  that  work  of  such  great  importance  to  the  two  high 
contracting  parties  and  to  the  world's  commerce. 

My  attention  has  been  especially  called  to  a  paragraph  of  your  excellency's 
note  of  the  8th  of  this  month  which  says  that  the  opposition  the  treaty's 
approval  met  in  the  United  States  Senate  convinces  your  excellency's  Govern- 
ment beyond  a  doubt  that  no  modifications  to  this  pact  could  be  submitted  to 
tha  same  Senate,  because  they  would  not  be  accepted. 

I  might  observe  that  the  general  opinion  which  has  been  developing  itself  in 
favor  of  the  Panama  route  might  induce  the  Senate  in  "Washington  to  accept 
some  or  all  of  the  modifications  which  may  be  adopted  by  the  Colombian  Con- 
gress: but  as  the  Government  of  your  excellency  does  not  think  possible  the 
presentation  of  modifications  to  the  pact,  I  will  call  the  attention  of  the  Con- 
gress of  Colombia  to  this  grave  circumstance. 

I  am  gratified  at  the  explanation  of  your  excellency  in  your  notes  relative  to 
the  approval  of  the  treaty,  that  you  have  done  nothing  but  fulfill  the  instruc- 
tions of  your  Government,  and  I  fully  appreciate  the  personal  interest  which 
your  excellency  manifests  in  the  honor  and  glory  of  the  nation  to  which  you 
are  accredited,  as  well  as  the  declaration  that  you  wish  to  procure  as  great 
benefits  as  possible,  not  only  to  the  country  you  represent,  but  also  to  that  in 
which  you  reside,  which  it  is  hoped  may  exercise  a  beneficial  influence  in  main- 
taining the  most  cordial  friendship  between  the  two  Republics. 

I  beg  that  your  excellency  accept  the  reiterations  of  my  highest  and  most  dis- 
tinguished consideration. 

(Signed)  Lots  Carlos  Rico. 

His  Excellency  A.  M.  Beattpre\ 

Envoy  Extraordinary  and  Minister  Plenipotentiary  of  the  United  States, 
etc. 


I  Inelosure  2. — Translation.] 

Ministry  of  Foreign  Relations. 

Bogota),  August  ///,  J90S. 
Mr.  Ministek:  As  your  excellency  has  been  pleased  to  address  me  various 
notes  relative  to  the  treaty  for  the  opening  of  the  Panama  Canal  which  was 
signed  in  Washington  the  22d  of  January  last,  I  inform  your  excellency  that  the 
Senate  of  the  Republic  disapproved  that  pact,  by  the  unanimous  vote  of  the 
senators  present,  in  the  session  of  the  12th  of  this  month,  and  the  day  following 
approved,  also  unanimously,  the  proposition  which  I  have  the  honor  to  com- 
municate to  your  excellency,  and  which  is  as  follows : 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  435 

"The  Senate  of  the  Republic,  in  view  of  the  disapproval  given  to  the  treaty 
signed  in  Washington  the  22d  of  Januarj  of  the  present  year,  by  the  charge 
d'affaires  of  Colombia  and  the  Secretary  of  State  of  the  American  Union,  and 
taking  into  account  the  desire  of  the  Colombian  people  to  maintain  the  most 
cordial  relations  with  the  people  of  the  United  States  of  America,  and  its  senti- 
ment that  the  completion  of  the  interoceanic  canal  across  the  Isthmus  of 
Panama  is  a  work  of  the  greatest  importance  for  the  commerce  and  advance- 
ment of  the  w  ill.  as  well  as  for  the  development  and  progress  of  the  American 
nations,  resolved : 

"1.  That  a  commission  of  three  senators,  appointed  by  the  president  of  the 
Senate,  consulting  in  every  possible  way  the  opinion  of  the  House  of  Represen- 
tatives, study  the  manner  of  meeting  the  earnest  desire  of  the  Colombian  peo- 
ple touching  the  construction  of  the  Panama  Canal,  in  harmony  with  the 
national  interests  and  observance  of  the  law  by  which  the  Senate  was  ruled  on 
this  solemn  occasion  :  and 

"  2.  That  the  widest  publicity  be  given  both  at  home  and  abroad  to  this  resolu- 
tion, to  the  modifications  to  said  treaty  proposed  by  the  commission  of  the 
Senate,  and  to  the  other  documents  which  had  led  to  this  resolution." 

Although  I  have  made  known  by  cable  to  the  Colombian  legation  in  Wash- 
ington the  contents  of  the  proposition  above  cpioted,  in  order  that  it  may  inform 
the  Department  of  State  of  both  actions,  I  communicate  the  same  to  your  excel- 
lency in  order  that  you  may,  if  you  see  fit  also  bring  them  to  the  knowledge  of 
the  Government  of  the  United  States. 

I  renew  to  your  excellency  the  assurances  of  my  highest  consideration. 

( Signed  ^  Loins  Carlos  Rico. 


Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

[Telegram.] 

United  States  Legation, 
Bogota,  August  17,  1903.     (Received  August  25.) 
The  President  informs  me  that  Congress  will  pass  law  authorizing 
him  to  continue  and  finish  negotiations  for  canal;  but  what  condi- 
tions will  be  specified  he  can  not  state  at  the  present  moment. 

Beaupre. 


Mr.  Beaupre  to  the  Department  of  Start . 

No.   110.]  Legation   of  the  United   States, 

Bogota,  August  18,  1903. 
Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  report  that  the  department's  telegram  of 
the  31st  ultimo  is  the  only  instruction  I  have  received  since  the  tele- 
gram of  the  13th  of  July  concerning  the  canal  treaty. 

As  telegrams  have  arrived  from  London,  Paris,  and  Berlin,  there  is 
something  mysterious  in  the  fact  that  none  have  come  from  the 
United  States  during  this  critical  period. 

There  is  a  feverish  anxiety  here  to  know  what  your  position  will  be 
upon  receiving  news  of  the  rejection  of  the  treaty,  and  further  action 
by  Congress  upon  it. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant. 

A.  M.  Beaupre. 


436  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

Mr.  Adee  to  Mr.  Beaupre. 

[Telegram.] 

Department  of  State, 
Washington,  August  19,  1903. 
A  telegram  from  consul  at  Colon  communicates  a  telegram  in 
Spanish,  dated  August  5,  saying  no  cable  received  since  July  13. 
Department  of  State  telegraphed  you  on  July  13,  24,  29,  31,  August 
10,  13,  and  15,  and  has  received  telegrams  from  you  dated  July  15, 
five  dated  August  5,  one  August  6,  10,  and  12.  Have  you  received 
department's  messages?  If  not,  protest  against  interference  with 
your  official  communications  which  are  entitled  to  privilege. 

Adee,  Acting. 


Mr.  Hay  to  Mr.  Beaupre. 

[Telegram.] 

Department  or  State, 
Washington,  August  24,  1903. 
The  President  will  make  no  engagement  as  to  his  action  on  the 
canal  matter,  but  I  regard  it  as  improbable  that  any  definite  action 
will  be  taken  within  two  weeks. 

Hay. 


Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

[Telegram.] 

United  States  Legation, 
Bogota,  August  %4,  1903.  (Received  28.) 
August  24,  11  a.  m.  Nothing  has  been  done,  and  very  little  satis- 
factory action,  this  depending  upon  the  attitude  of  the  Government 
of  the  United  States^  which  is  waited  for  in  great  anxiety.  The  re- 
port of  the  committee  prepared.  Have  received  telegram  of  13th; 
none  later. 

Beaupre. 


Mr.  Beaupre  to  Secretary  of  State. 

No.  115.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Bogota,  August  24,  1903. 

Sir:  Referring  to  the  department's  No.  23  of  July  21,  1903,  I  have 
the  honor  to  inclose  herewith  two  copies  of  the  decree  of  Vice-Presi- 
dent Maroquin  calling  the  session  of  Congress  to  consider  the  canal 
treaty,  and  two  copies  of  the  sections  of  the  constitution  referred  to 
in  said  decree  as  requested  by  the  Hon.  John  T.  Morgan. 

I  might  add  that  the  constitution  of  Colombia  is  to  be  found  at 
page  179  of  Foreign  Relations  for  1886. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant.  A.  M.  Beaupre. 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  437 

[Inclosure  in  115.] 

EXTRACTS    FROM    CONSTITUTION. 

Article  72.  Congress  shall  assemble  in  extraordinary  session  when  summoned 
by  the  Government.  It  shall,  in  such  sessions,  consider  only  such  business  as 
is  specially  submitted  by  the  Government  for  its  consideration. 

Paragraph  2  of  article  118.  To  convene  Congress  in  extraordinary  sessions 
for  serious  reasons  of  public  convenience  and  after  previous  consultation  with 
the  council  of  state. 

The  preamble  of  article  118  reads :  "  The  President  of  the  Republic  shall 
exercise  the  following  powers  in  relation  to  the  legislative  department." 


Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

[Telegram.] 

United  States  Legation, 
Bogota,  August  26,  1903.     (Eeceived  29.) 
August  26_j  7  a.  m.     Have  received  telegram  19th.     Have  not  re- 
ceived department's  messages  of  July  24,  29,  and  August  15,  which 
is  most  unfortunate,  for  the  situation  is  grave,  and  much  depends 
upon  your  attitude. 

Will  protest.  Beaupre. 


Mr.  Hay  to  Mr.  Beaupre. 

[Telegram.] 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  August  29, 1903. 
The  President  is  bound  by  the  Isthmian  Canal  statute,  commonly 
called  the  Spooner  law.  By  its  provisions  he  is  given  a  reasonable 
time  to  arrange  a  satisfactory  treaty  with  Colombia.  When,  in  his 
judgment,  the  reasonable  time  has  expired  and  he  has  not  been  able  to 
make  a  satisfactory  arrangement  as  to  the  Panama  route,  he  will  then 
proceed  to  carry  into  effect  the  alternative  of  the  statute.  Meantime 
the  President  will  enter  into  no  engagement  restraining  his  freedom 
of  action  under  the  statute. 

Hay. 


Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

[Telegram.] 

United  States  Legation, 
Bogota,  August  29, 1903.     (Received  September  4.) 
August  29,  12  m.    I  have  not  yet  received  any  messages  from  the 
department  concerning  the  rejection  of  the  treaty  nor  those  mentioned 
in  my  telegram  of  the  26th.    The  committee  has  not  yet  reported,  and 
the  prospects  of  satisfactory  report  are  not  good. 

Beaupre. 


438  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA  CANAL. 

Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

Bogota,  August  30, 1903. 
(Received  September  12.) 
August  30,  8  a.  m.  Confidential.  I  am  informed  authoritatively 
that  to  assure  the  election  of  Reyes,  Marroquin  has  already  changed 
the  governors  of  Bolivar,  Magdalena,  and  Panama,  nominating,  re- 
spectively, Insignares,  Barrios,  and  Senator  Obaldia.  All  pledged  to 
the  treaty  and  to  Reyes. 

Beaupre. 


Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

[Telegram.] 

United  States  Legation, 
Bogota,  August  31,  1903.    (Received  September  5.) 

August  31,  1903,  2  p.  m.  I  had  an  interview  with  Senator  Ospina 
to-day.  He  informed  me  that  he  is  willing  to  remain  so  long  as  there 
is  hope  for  the  treaty,  but  he  is  convinced  that  there  is  none,  and  will 
leave,  therefore,  on  the  6th  proximo.  Confirms  General  Reyes  state- 
ment concerning  presidential  candidate,  and  says  that  the  next  Senate 
was  made  certain  for  the  treaty ;  that  he  bears  instructions  to  Gover- 
nors Signares  and  Barrios  concerning  the  elections  which  will  be  held 
next  December ;  that  in  accepting  governorship  of  Panama  he  told  the 
President  that  in  case  that  the  department  found  it  necessary  to  revolt 
to  secure  canal,  he  would  stand  by  Panama ;  but  he  added  if  the  Gov- 
ernment of  the  United  States  will  wait  for  the  next  session  of  Con- 
gress canal  can  be  secured  without  a  revolution.  Senator  Campo, 
from  the  Cauca,  is  about  to  leave,  thinking  the  treaty  gone. 

Confidential.  My  opinion  is  that  nothing  satisfactory  can  be  ex- 
pected from  this  Congress.  Caro's  party  has  been  joined  by  Velez 
and  Soto  and  their  followers,  constituting  a  decisive  majority  against 
the  treaty.     General  Reyes  seems  to  still  entertain  hopes. 

Beaupre. 


Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

[Telegram.] 

United  States  Legation, 
Bogota,  September  1,  1903. 
{ Received  through  German  embassy  September  5.) 
Have  not  received  department's  messages,  while  others  of  late  date 
for  various  legations  have  arrived.     I  have  sent  important  telegrams 
30  and  31.     On  receiving,  answer  by  German  minister. 

Beaupre. 


Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

[Telegram.] 

United  States  Legation. 
Bogota,  September  £,  1903.     (Received  September  6.) 
Have  received  your  telegram  24. 

Beaupre. 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  439 

Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

[Telegram.] 

United  States  Legation, 
Bogota,  September  2, 1903.     (Eeceived  September  6.) 

September  5.  Have  received  telegram  29.  The  committee  have 
reported  a  law  which  approves  rejection  of  the  treaty;  authorizes 
the  President  to  conclude  treaties  for  Panama  Canal  or  contract  for 
same  with  private  parties,  subject  to  rights  of  companies;  railroad 
company  permitted  to  transfer,  purchaser  assuming  all  obligations, 
including  annual  payments  of  $250,000  and  transfer  of  property  to 
Colombia  in  1967 ;  canal  company  permitted  to  transfer  on  payment 
to  Colombia  of  $10,000,000;  the  President  authorized  to  make  fol- 
lowing concessions:  Lease  of  zone  for  one  hundred  years,  not  in- 
cluding Panama  or  Colon;  annual  rent  $150,000  until  1967;  lease 
renewing  every  hundred  years  on  payment  of  25  per  cent  increase; 
neutrality  of  canal  and  the  recognition  of  Colombian  sovereignty 
over  the  whole  territory  and  inhabitants;  mixed  tribunals  only;  po- 
lice and  sanitary  commissions  Colombian  only;  excluded  from  zone; 
time  limit  for  completion  of  works;  Colombia  to  receive  from  con- 
tracting Government  $20,000,000  on  the  ratifications  of  the  treaty; 
fixing  regulations  concerning  purchase  of  private  company. 

It  is  now  highly  probable  even  this  may  not  be  accepted  by  the 
Senate.  In  any  event  nothing  more  satisfactory  may  be  expected 
from  this  Congress.     The  debates  will  begin  next  Monday. 

Beaupre. 


Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

No.  129.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Bogota,  September  5,  1903. 

Sir  :  I  have  the  honor  to  report  that  since  the  appointment  of  the 
joint  congressional  committee  to  consider  the  canal  matter  nothing 
was  done  until  the  committee  made  its  report  on  the  4th  instant. 
I  cabled  the  substance  of  that  report,  and  should  there  seem  any 
prospect  of  its  passing  I  will  send  it  in  full. 

As  the  situation  seems  at  present,  it  is  not  likely  to  pass.  The  first 
debate  in  the  Senate  will  commence  on  the  7th  instant,  and  the  ques- 
tion may  be  settled  during  the  week. 

I  think  my  previous  reports  have  given  the  department  a  very  good 
idea  of  the  situation,  but  there  are  some  phases  of  it  which  I  should 
like  to  discuss  personally  when  I  next  visit  the  United  States.  This 
will  be  in  March  of  next  year,  I  think,  if  I  can  get  the  department's 
permission,  and  circumstances  admit  of  it. 

The  impressions  which  I  set  forth  in  my  No.  6  of  April  15,  1903, 
that  there  would  be  an  attempt  to  secure  greater  concessions  from 
the  United  States  before  a  canal  treaty  would  be  ratified,  are  now 
confirmed.  It  is  quite  probable  that  the  Government  originally 
intended  that  a  treaty  of  some  sort  should  be  passed,  but  apparently 
not  the  one  under  consideration  in  its  entirety. 

If  in  the  earlier  days  of  Congress,  when  the  Government  had  a 
majority  in  the  Senate,  the  United  States  or  the  canal  company  could 


440  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

have  been  induced  to  add  $10,000,000  or  $15,000,000  to  the  recom- 
pense to  be  received  by  Colombia,  I  believe  the  treaty  would  have 
been  ratified ;  but  lately  the  tide  of  opposition  has  set  in  so  strongly 
that  it  has  seemed  beyond  control. 

The  public  discussion  which  the  Government  invited  has  not  only 
overwhelmed  the  treaty,  but  has  been  immensely  disastrous  to  the 
Government  itself.  It  has  not  ben  a  discussion  in  fact,  but  a  rivalry 
among  the  newspapers  as  to  which  could  produce  the  most  violent 
and  bitter  attacks  upon  the  whole  negotiation.  The  only  articles 
which  have  appeared  in  defense  of  the  treaty  were  written  by  Mr. 
J.  T.  Ford  and  Mr.  Enrique  Cortez.  These  were  answered  by  per- 
sonal attacks  upon  the  writers.  Mr.  Ford  was  accused  of  desiring  the 
passage  of  the  treaty  in  order  to  secure  the  payment  of  the  claims  of 
his  companies. 

I  must  give  Mr.  Ford  the  credit  of  working  for  the  treaty  to  the 
utmost  of  his  ability  during  the  three  months  that  he  remained  at  this 
capital. 

Some  of  the  newspapers  are  now  urging  that  by  threats  and  intimi- 
dation a  powerful  nation  has  been  trying  to  coerce  the  acceptance  of 
an  unconstitutional  and  unsatisfactory  treaty  upon  a  weak  one,  but 
that  through  the  loyalty  of  its  legislators  Colombia  has  emerged  from 
the  ordeal  with  unstained  honor. 

With  respect  to  the  assurances  from  certain  quarters  that  the  next 
Congress  would  be  made  up  so  that  the  canal  treaty  may  be  ratified,  I 
believe  that  this  must  be  taken  with  due  allowance.  That  any  one  in 
authority  here  has  any  intention  of  securing  the  ratification  of  the 
treaty  in  its  present  form  I  can  not  believe.  They  will  insist  upon 
more  money  and  other  modifications. 

It  is  now  understood  that  the  vice  president  will  close  this  Con- 
gress on  the  20th  instant,  so  that  little  consideration  can  be  given  to 
the  important  questions  before  it.  I  believe  a  law  concerning  for- 
eign claims  will  be  passed.  It  is  said  that  in  this  the  Government 
will  distinctly  refuse  to  recognize  its  responsibility  for  damages  occa- 
sioned by  the  revolutionists. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

A.  M.  Beaupre. 


Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

[Telegram.] 

United  States  Legation, 
Bogota,  September  10, 1903.  (Keceived  September  12.) 
Since  the  report  of  the  canal  committee  the  question  has  not  been 
discussed  in  the  Senate.  First  consideration  of  the  report  postponed 
until  14th  instant.  Fierce  attack  to-day  in  the  Senate  upon  the 
appointment  of  Obaldia  as  governor  of  Panama.  The  appointment 
is  regarded  as  being  the  forerunner  of  separation.  Of  several  Sena- 
tors who  spoke  only  the  son  of  the  President  defended  the  action  of 
the  Government.  A  resolution  passed  by  almost  unanimous  vote, 
which  is  equivalent  vote  of  censure  against  the  Government.  The  sit- 
uation is  not  improved.    There  is  no  prospect  of  satisfactory  action. 

Beaupre. 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTOEY   OF   THE   PANAMA  CANAL.  441 

Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

No.  133.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Bogota,  September  11, 1903. 

Sir  :  I  have  the  honor  to  report  that  events  of  interest  have  taken 
place  in  connection  with  the  appointment  of  Senator  Obaldia  to  the 
post  of  governor  of  the  department  of  Panama. 

Senator  Obaldia's  separatist  tendencies  are  well  known,  and  he  is 
reported  to  have  said  that,  should  the  canal  treaty  not  pass,  the  de- 
partment of  Panama  would  declare  its  independence,  and  would  be 
right  in  doing  so.  That  these  are  his  opinions  there  is,  of  course,  no 
doubt,  as  I  stated  in  mv  telegram  to  the  Department  of  August  31, 
1903. 

At  yesterday's  session  of  the  Senate  the  feeling  of  opposition  to 
Sefior  Obaldia's  appointment  was  given  expression  by  a  resolution 
proposed  by  Senator  Perez  y  Soto,  to  the  effect  that — 

The  Senate  of  the  Republic  can  not  see  with  indifference  the  appointment 
which  has  been  made  for  the  post  of  governor  of  the  department  of  Panama 
which  it  regards  as  a  menace  to  the  safety  of  the  Republic. 

This  resolution  was  amended  by  omitting  the  reference  to  the 
governorship  of  Panama  in  particular,  and  made  to  include  all  ad- 
ministrative posts  held  under  the  Government. 

In  this  form  it  passed  with  an  almost  unanimous  vote. 

The  debate  itself,  though  short,  for  it  lasted  under  two  hours,  was 
one  of  the  most  important  that  has  yet  taken  place  in  open  session. 
As  I  telegraphed  yesterday,  it  was  nothing  more  or  less  than  a  direct 
vote  of  censure. 

It  was  said  that  Obaldia's  appointment  could  have  one,  and  only 
one,  explanation :  That  he  was  sent  to  the  Isthmus  to  make  necessary 
preparations  for  the  presidential  election;  and  that  other  similar 
appointments  had  been  made  with  the  same  end  in  view — such  as 
that  of  insignares  to  the  Department  of  Bolivar. 

The  speakers  showed  greater  heat  than  I  have  yet  known  them  to 
evince  in  this  Congress.  It  seemed  to  be  the  general  opinion  that  the 
Government  was  prostituting  the  general  interests  of  the  country  for 
purposes  of  electioneering  intrigue. 

Gen.  Pedro  Nel  Ospina,  in  a  passionate  and  much  applauded 
speech,  warned  the  Government  that  should  it  persist  in  its  present 
course,  exhausted  as  the  country  was,  a  fresh  revolution  was  not  far 
distant.- 

The  notable  feature  in  the  debate  was  the  general  spirit  of  hostility 
shown  toward  the  Government,  both  by  the  Senators  themselves  and 
by  the  public  assembled  in  the  gallery  and  round  the  lobbies.  With 
the  exception  of  one  Senator  there  was  not  a  speaker  who  did  not 
bitterly  and  uncompromisingly  denounce  the  Government.  When 
Senator  Marroquin,  the  son  of  the  President,  rose  to  defend  the  action 
of  the  Government,  he  was  greeted  with  hisses  from  all  parts  of  the 
house,  and  hisses  and  jeers  accompanied  him  throughout  his  speech. 
There  was  absolutely  no  sympathy  for  him  nor  for  his  position. 

It  is  evident,  I  think,  that  a  cross  current  was  at  work  during  the 
debate.  It  was  initiated  by  an  opponent  of  the  canal  and  a  believer 
in  the  integrity  of  Colombia  against  the  appointment  of  a  Panaman 
who  ardently  supported  the  canal,  and  who,  if  forced  to  accept  an 


442  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL. 

alternative,  would  rather  see  the  Isthmus  independent  than  lose  the 
chance  of  seeing  the  canal  built  through  his  department.  The  oppo- 
nent of  the  canal  scheme  carried  the  house  with  him,  but  he  gained 
their  support,  not  in  virtue  of  his  attitude  on  the  canal  question,  but 
because  his  resolution  opened  the  door  to  a  general  attack  on  the 
Government. 

It  really  begins  to  appear  that  the  majority  of  the  senate  care  little 
about  the  canal,  except  in  so  far  as  that  subject  ministers  to  their  own 
political  ends. 

During  yesterday's  session  the  senators  were  presented  with  a 
document  published  by  Senator  Perez  y  Soto,  protesting  against  the 
appointment  of  Senator  Obaldia  to  Panama.  The  large  portion  of 
this  publication  consists  of  a  copy  of  a  letter  addressed  to  the  Presi- 
dent on  the  subject.  Treating  of  the  canal  in  this  letter,  the  follow- 
ing significant  passage  occurs : 

When  we  (Perez  y  Soto  and  the  President)  met  again,  in  December  (1902), 
my  first  care  was  to  entreat  you  to  allow  nothing  to  be  signed — nothing  at  the 
time  pending  with  the  American  Government — for  by  knowing  how  to  wait 
we  might  be  able  to  obtain  greater  advantages  in  the  canal  treaty.  You  an- 
swered me  that  the  Government  could  very  well  allow  the  treaty  to  be  signed, 
leaving  it  to  Congress  to  make  such  modifications  as  it  might  see  fit.  I  then 
obsen  el  to  yon  that  e\ren  that  was  a  dangerous  course  to  pursue,  because  with 
the  Americans  there  was  no  playing.  I  said  that  yon  did  not  escape  responsi- 
bility by  making  concessions  ad  referendum. 

I  have  no  reason  to  doubt  the  senator's  veracity,  and  his  state- 
ment brings  vividly  to  mind  the  predictions  I  made  in  my  No.  6  of 
April  15,  1903,  to  the  effect  that  when  the  President  ordered  the 
treaty  to  be  signed  he  anticipated  amendments,  and  indulged  in  the 
hope  of  having  them  accepted  by  the  United  States. 

In  view  of  recent  representations  made  to  the  department  that  the 
election  for  members  of  the  Congress  of  1904  would  be  so  looked 
after  that  the  canal  treaty  could  be  passed,  it  is  well  to  remember 
that  the  present  Congress  was  specially  called  to  consider  the  treaty. 
and  that  the  same  methods  were  employed  in  electing  this  one  as 
must  be  in  electing  the  one  of  next  year.  Why,  then,  if  that  power 
is  lodged  in  the  Government,  were  not  the  present  senators  and  depu- 
ties pledged  to  the  ratification  of  the  treaty? 

If  the  Government  intended  to  elect  a  minority  strongly  opposed  to 
the  treaty,  and  to  give  them  full  play  in  their  attacks  upon  it  with  the 
view  of  obtaining  better  terms  from  the  United  States,  it  has  reckoned 
without  its  host,  for  it  has  brought  into  existence  a  Congress  a  large 
portion  of  which  is  not  only  against  the  treaty  but  intensely  hostile 
to  the  Government  itself.  This  is  partly  due  to  blunders  on  the  part 
of  some  of  the  governors  of  departments,  especially  the  one  in  Panama, 
but  also  to  the  rupture  with  General  Fernandez.  A  considerable  num- 
ber of  the  senators  and  deputies  elected  were  supporters  of  the  latter, 
and  were  regarded  as  votes  upon  which  the  Government  could  count. 
After  the  break  with  Fernandez  these  votes  joined  the  opposition,  and 
to-day  the  Government  finds  itself  confronted  with  a  hostile  majority 
instead  of  a  noisy  minority. 

It  was  evidently  plain  to  the  Government  some  time  ago  that  there 
is  no  hope  for  the  ratification  of  the  treaty ;  that  the  treaty  would  be 
rejected  not  on  its  own  merits,  but  as  a  means  of  dealing  a  blow  at  the 
Government  of  President  Marroquin.    Seeing  how  the  political  game 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY    OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  443 

was  being  played  the  Government  abandoned  any  intent  it  may  have 
had  to  advocate  the  treaty  and  turned  its  attention  to  averting  from 
itself  the  current  of  opposition,  or  at  any  rate  the  responsibility  for 
the  rejection  of  the  treat}7.  For  this  reason,  on  a  motion  by  Senator 
Marroquin,  the  President's  son.  on  the  day  which  had  been  set  apart 
by  previous  arrangement  for  the  rejection  of  the  treaty,  the  debate 
was  preceded  by  the  reading  of  the  correspondence  which  had  passed 
between  the  minister  for  foreign  affairs  and  myself.  The  object  of 
this  move  is  clear.  The  Government  desired  to  make  it  appear  that 
the  rejection  of  the  treaty  was  not  a  blow  aimed  at  the  President  and 
his  ministers,  but  was  a  protest  against  what  was  asserted  to  be  the 
dictatorial  attitude  assumed  by  the  United  kStates  Government 
through  its  minister. 

The  first  debate  on  the  report  of  the  joint  congressional  committee 
appointed  to  consider  the  canal  matter  has  been  postponed  until  the 
14th  instant,  but  nothing  satisfactory  is  to  be  expected  from  this 
Congress. 

I  am.  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

A.  M.  Beaupre. 


Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

[Telegram.] 

United  States  Legation, 
Bogota,  September  14, 1903.     (Received  September  15.) 
Canal  committee  report  unanimously  passed  first  reading  to-day. 
Perez  Soto  gave  notice  amendment  absolutely  restricting  the  Execu- 
tive to  terms  of  proposed  law.     The  situation  has  not  changed,  and 
nothing  better  than  this  law  may  be  expected. 

Beaupre. 


Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

[Telegram.] 

United  States  Legation, 
Bogota,  September  17, 1903.     (Received  7.30  p.  m.,  18.) 
September  17,  11  a.  m.     No  discussion  of  canal  question  and  no 
change  in  the  situation. 

The  probability  is  that  Congress  will  not   adjourn  before  20th 
proximo. 

Beaupre. 


Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

No.  139.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Bogota,  September  18,  1903. 
Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  send  you  inclosed  a  copy  of  the  Diario 
Oficial  of  September  15,  1903,  containing  the  majority  and  minority 
reports  of  the  special  committee  of  the  Senate  appointed  to  consider 


444  DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY    OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

the  Panama  Canal  treaty,  which  reports  were  made  on  August  4, 
1903.  I  also  inclose  the  printed  report  of  the  Senate  members  of  the 
joint  committee  appointed  to  consider  the  question  of  the  construc- 
tion of  a  canal,  which  report  was  made  on  September  4,  1903. 

I  informed  you  that  the  last  report  had  passed  the  first  debate  in 
the  Senate.  Since  that  time  the  matter  has  not  been  considered  at 
all.  It  is  altogether  probable  that  amendments  will  be  made  before 
the  project  passes  the  Senate,  and  that  still  others  will  be  attached 
to  it  in  the  lower  house. 

It  is  the  general  opinion  that  the  Congress  will  be  closed  on  October 
20,  but  this  has  not  been  definitely  decided.     At  any  rate  the  canal 
matter  is  not  likely  to  be  disposed  of  until  the  last  days  of  the  session. 
I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

A.  M.  Beattpre. 


[Translation.] 

Panama  Canal. 

[Several  papers  concerning  the  treaty  between  Colombia  and  the  United  States.     From 

the  Diario  Oficial.]     * 

[Translation  of  a  project  of  a  law  submitted  by  certain  senators  on  August  3. 
1903,  by  wbich  the  treaty  between  the  Republic  of  Colombia  and  the  United 
States  of  America,  for  the  construction  of  an  interoceanic  canal  between  the 
Atlantic  and  Pacific  Oceans,  is  approved  with  modifications.  From  the  Diario 
Oficial,  September  15,  1903.] 

The  Colombian  Congress,  having  examined  the  treaty  signed  the  22d  of  Janu- 
ary of  the  present  year  between  the  charge  d'affaires  of  Colombia  before  the 
Government  of  the  United  States  of  America  and  the  Secretary  of  State  of  that 
Republic,  which  treaty  reads  literally  as  follows  (see  text  of  treaty  as  signed), 
decrees : 

Sole  article.  That  the  above-inserted  treaty  is  approved  with  modifications  set 
forth  as  follows : 

First.  In  the  preamble  the  reference  to  the  law  of  the  United  States  of  June 
28,  1902  (Spooner  law),  shall  be  suppressed. 

Second.  In  the  first  article  a  provision  shall  be  introduced  that  the  Panama 
Canal  and  Railroad  Companies  shall  previously  enter  into  an  agreement  with 
the  Colombian  Government  setting  forth  certain  conditions,  among  which  the 
Colombian  Government  shall  give  the  necessary  consent  that  such  companies 
may  transfer  their  rights  to  the  United  States.  It  shall  be  stipulated  that 
Colombia  shall  recover  control  of  all  the  public  lands  which  are  now  in  the 
possession  of  the  said  companies,  without  exception,  so  that  the  cities  of 
Panama  and  Colon  shall  remain  effectively  and  completely  outside  of  the  zone 
of  the  concession. 

Third.  The  terms  of  the  second  and  third  articles  shall  be  modified  so  as  to 
clearly  provide  that  Colombia  concedes  to  the  United  States  only  the  right  to 
use  the  zone  of  the  canal  and  such  part  of  the  adjacent  territory  as  may  be 
necessary  for  the  work ;  it  must  be  clearly  set  forth  that  the  rights  conceded  to 
the  United  States  are  in  the  nature  of  a  tenancy,  excluding  any  idea  of  transfer 
of  dominion  by  establishing  clearly  and  peremptorily  the  perpetuity  of  the  con- 
cession. The  boundaries  of  the  zone  shall  be  indicated  with  the  greatest  possible 
precision  and  the  accessory  properties  included  in  the  concession  shall  be 
clearly  set  forth,  definitely  excluding  from  the  latter  the  cities  of  Panama  and 
Colon.  It  shall  be  stipulated,  moreover,  that  the  guaranty  of  the  treaty  of 
1846-1S4S  shall  not  be  modified  in  any  way  and  shall  continue  to  be  in  force  in 
the  Department  of  Panama,  including  the  zone  of  concession. 

Fourth.  In  the  seventh  article  the  concession  shall  be  limited  expressly  to  the 
right  to  use  gratuitously  the  waters  of  the  lakes,  lagoons,  rivers,  and  othei 
streams,  natural  or  artificial,  which  are  necessary  for  the  feeding  of  the  canal, 
or  for  its  construction,  sustenance,  and  operation,  having  the  right  to  deviate 
the  course  of  such  waters,  to  raise  or  lower  their  levels,  to  convert  them  into 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  445 

lakes,  widen  or  reduce  them,  as  ruay  be  most  convenient  for  the  purposes;  and 
it  shall  be  stipulated  that  such  right  is  exclusive  so  far  as  it  relates  to  the  use 
of  said  waters  for  the  feeding  and  supply  of  the  canal  and  canal  auxiliaries,  this 
concession  not  preventing  the  waters  referred  to  being  used,  under  legitimate 
authority,  for  other  purposes  than  navigation,  which  do  not  interfere  with  or 
obstruct  the  use  which  the  United  States  may  desire  to  make  of  them.  The  use 
of  water  or  waterways  outside  of  the  canal  zone  for  the  transportation  of  mate- 
rials shall  not  be  the  exclusive  right  of  the  United  States,  but  this  right  shall 
be  granted  to  them  without  taxes  or  imposts  of  any  kind,  so  far  as  relates  to 
materials  for  the  construction,  support,  and  working  of  the  canal. 

The  natural  products,  property  of  the  Republic,  which  the  United  States  may 
require  for  the  work  shall  be  stipulated  with  the  greatest  possible  exactness,  the 
right  being  limited  to  the  Department  of  Panama,  and  providing  that  the  ex- 
propriations which  shall  be  made  under  this  article  (seventh)  shall  be  subject 
to  the  provisions  of  article  14. 

Fifth.  In  the  eighth  article  the  vagueness  of  the  clause  shall  be  corrected, 
under  which  no  taxes  shall  be  collected  in  the  cities  of  Panama  and  Colon  except 
upon  merchandise  imported  for  consumption  in  the  rest  of  the  Republic  of  Co- 
lombia, etc. 

Sixth.  In  the  thirteenth  article  there  shall  be  suppressed  as  being  contrary  to 
the  constitution  all  that  relates  to  the  establishment  of  United  States  tribunals 
and  the  application  of  the  laws  of  that  country  in  Colombian  territory,  and  it 
shall  be  stipulated  that  the  regulations  of  police  and  sanitation  which  shall  be 
in  force  in  the  Canal  Zone  shall  be  a  matter  for  agreement  between  the  two 
Governments. 

Seventh.  Indemnifications  which  may  be  named  by  the  committee  mentioned 
in  article  14  of  the  convention  for  expi'opriations  made  in  certain  cases  referred 
to  in  the  same  article  shall  be  paid  by  the  United  States,  and  the  valuations 
shall  be  in  accordance  with  the  regulations  set  forth  in  article  9  of  the  law  119 
of  1890. 

Eighth.  In  the  twenty-fourth  article  a  clause  of  forfeiture  shall  be  introduced 
designating  a  term  after  which,  if  the  work  is  not  completed,  all  the  concessions 
shall  lapse  and  all  the  rights  and  property  of  the  enterprise  shall  return  to 
Colombia.  , 

The  last  part  of  article  25,  beginning,  "  But  no  delay,  etc.,"  shall  be  sup- 
pressed. 

Ninth.  In  the  additional  clause  the  tribunal  shall  determine  what  must  be 
done  concerning  differences  that  may  arise  between  the  contracting  parties 
touching  the  fulfillment  of  the  treaty  provisions.     Given,  etc. 

Submitted  to  the  honorable  Senate,  in  special  committee,  by  the  undersigned 
senators  in  the  session  of  Monday,  the  3d  of  August,  1903. 

Pedro  Nel  Ospina.  J.  D.  de  Obaldia,  J.  M.  Uricoechea,  Luis  F.  Campo,  Eduardo 
B.  Gerlein,  J.  M.  Ribas  Groot.  Jose  M.  Gonzalez  Valencia. 

Joaquin  M.  Uribe  B.  and  Juan  B.  Perez  y  Soto  reserve  the  privilege  of  a 
separate  report. 

(In  their  minority  reports  they  greatly  amend  the  treaty.) 


Colombia,  Senate  Chamber,  Office  of  the  Secretary,  No.  116, 

Bogotd,  August  13,  1903. 
To  the  Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs: 

In  compliance  with  article  322  of  the  Senate  rules,  I  have  the  honor  to  inform 
your  excellency  that  this  body,  in  yesterday's  session,  rejected  on  first  debate 
the  project  of  law  "by  which  the  treaty  (signed  in  Washington  on  January  22, 
1903)  for  the  opening  of  the  Panama  Canal  is  approved." 

God  preserve  your  excellency. 

Miguel  A.  Penaredonda. 

Colombia.  Senate  Chamber,  Office  ok  the  Secretary,  No.  121, 

Bogotd,  August  13.  1903. 
Minister  of  Foreign  Relations: 

In  order  that  the  department,  under  your  excellency  may  take  such  course  as 
may  be  deemed  proper  for  foreign  publicity.  I  communicate  at  once  to  your 
excellency  the  resolution  unanimously  approved  by  the  Senate  at  to-day's 
session. 


446  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

"  The  Senate  of  the  Republic,  in  view  of  the  rejection  given  to  the  treaty 
signed  in  Washington  on  January  22  of  the  present  year,  between  the  charge 
d'affaires  of  Colombia  and  the  Secretary  of  State  of  the  American  Union,  and 
taking  into  account  the  fact  that  the  people  of  Colombia  desire  to  maintain  the 
most  cordial  relations  with  the  United  States  of  America,  and  deem  the  con- 
struction of  an  interoceanic  canal  across  the  Isthmus  of  Panama  a  matter  of 
the  greatest  importance  to  commerce  and  the  world's  progress,  as  well  as  for 
the  development  and  progress  of  the  American  nations,  resolves : 

"  First.  That  a  committee  of  three  senators,  designated  by  the  president  of 
the  Senate,  consulting  as  far  as  possible  the  views  of  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives, shall  investigate  a  way  of  satisfying  the  desire  of  the  Colombian  people 
regarding  the  construction  of  the  Panama  Canal  in  harmony  with  the  national 
interests  and  respect  for  law  which  has  been  on  this  solemn  occasion  the  guide 
of  the  Senate. 

"  Second.  That  the  greatest  possible  publicity  shall  be  given,  in  this  country 
as  well  as  elsewhere,  to  this  resolution,  to  the  modifications  which  the  Senate 
committee  may  propose  to  said  treaty,  and  to  the  other  documents  which  have 
preceded  in  the  consideration  of  this  matter." 

God  preserve  your  excellency. 

Miguel  A.  Penaredonda. 


[  Enclosure  with  dispatch  No.  139,  September  18,  1903,  from  the  United   States  minister 

at  Bogota. — Translation.] 

Panama  Canal     Repoet  of  a  Committee  and  Draft  of  a  Law. 

Honorable  Senators : 

Having  been  designated  on  the  13th  instant  by  this  honorable  chamber  to 
"  timl  a  way  to  satisfy  the  desii-e  of  the  Colombian  people  regarding  the  con- 
si  ruction  of  the  Panama  Canal  in  harmony  with  the  national  interests  and 
respect  for  law,  which  has  been  on  this  solemn  occasion  the  guide  of  the 
Senate,"  a  designation  made  in  conformity  with  the  resolution  adopted  on  the 
same  day  and  reached  after  the' unanimous  rejection,  on  first  debate,  of  the 
draft  id'  law  "which  approves  the  treaty  signed  in  Washington  on  the  22d  of 
January  of  the  present  year  between  the  plenipotentiaries  of  the  Republic  of 
Colombia  and  of  the  United  States  of  America  for  the  construction  of  an  inter- 
oceanic canal  through  the  Colombian  Isthmus."  we  have  given  our  whole  atten- 
tion to  this  difficult  subject,  endeavoring  to  find  a  solution  which  may  harmonize 
and  satisfy  the  exigencies  of  the  case. 

It  is  known  that  the  treaty  was  disapproved  because  of  unconstitutionality, 
illegality,  and  inronvenience  for  Colombia  of  some  of  its  provisions,  and 
because,  while  the  Senate  was  considering  it  (under  its  constitutional  preroga- 
tive and  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  the  treaty  itself)  and  was  in  pos- 
session of  the  report  which,  at  the  first  debate,  the  majority  of  the  committee 
named  for  the  purpose  submitted,  and  of  the  restrictions  proposed,  the  Govern- 
ment of  tbe  United  States  made  known  to  Colombia,  through  their  United  States 
minister  in  Bogota  and  the  department  of  foreign  affairs,  and  by  the  latter 
directly  to  the  Senate,  thai  any  modification  which  might  be  introduced  into  the 
convention  would  not  be  admit  ted  and  would  be  equivalent  to  a  rejection  of  the 
treaty.  The  Colombian  Senate,  in  view  of  the  attitude  and  declaration  of  the 
United  States  Government,  was  left  necessarily  with  the  alternative  of  approv- 
ing what  the  constitution  and  the  interest  of  the  country  ordered  it  to  reject, 
or  or  refusing  its  approbation  to  what  had  been  conditionally  agreed  upon  by 
the  two  Governments.  The  Senate  determined  upon  the  latter  of  these  alter- 
natives, as  was  to  have  been  expected. 

Keeping  within  the  constitutional  limits  (according  to  our  loyal  understand- 
ing of  the  constitution)  and  admitting  such  concessions  as  reason  and  experi- 
ence show  are  indispensable,  in  order  to  arrive  in  this  matter  at  a  satisfactory 
and  practical  solution,  we  have  formulated  a  draft  of  a  law  of  authorizations, 
which  we  submit  on  a  separate  page,  and  which,  if  certainly  an  imperfect  result 
because  of  the  difficulties  of  the  subject,  of  our  incapacity,  and  of  the  many 
peculiar  circumstances  of  the  present  case,  will  show  our  desire  to  succeed,  and 
that  an  initiative  which  may  tend  to  solve  a  problem  of  such  universal  impor- 
tance as  that  of  communication  between  the  two  oceans  through  our  Isthmus  of 
Panama,  is  not  abandoned  without  some  fresh  effort  made  in  good  faith  and 
loyalty  by  both  parties. 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA  CANAL.  447 

It  is  too  clear  to  us  (as  to  all  the  world)  that  this  matter  can  not  be  deter- 
mined heedlessly,  but  that  its  solution,  the  result  of  which  will  affect  our  entire 
country  for  centuries,  and  represents  at  this  time  the  hope  of  life  and  prosper- 
ity or  the  fear  of  ruin  to  important  sections  of  the  country,  and  even  to  those 
sections  apparently  remote  and  isolated  with  respect  to  the  colossal  work,  de- 
mands that  it  be  considered  and  acted  upon  in  an  especial  manner,  not  per- 
mitting the  standard  to  be  disturbed  either  by  erroneous  notions  or  half-formed 
truths,  which  usually  divert  it. or  carry  it  to  extremes  which,  the  fervor  of  the 
moment  having  passed,  may  afterwards  appear  improper.  Calmness,  a  precise 
appreciation  of  the  present  and  future  national  needs,  in  the  widest  and  noblest 
sense  of  those  words,  foresight  and  prudence  must  enter  into  the  study  of  this 
thorny  question  in  order  that  it  can  be  said  that  it  was  settled  for  the  country's 
good,  which  must  consist  in  acts,  not  in  words;  in  serving  the  country,  not  in 
harming  it  in  the  belief  of  serving  it.  We  may  feel  sure  that  this  is  the  first 
occasion  in  which  this  problem  has  been  presented  before  the  world  under  the 
conditions  which  we  now  have  before  us.  It  would  be,  then,  useless  to  look 
for  precedents.  Whatever  may  be  done  to  settle  the  matter  under  these  cir- 
cumstances, which  no  one  can  alter,  will  be  the  precedent  for  future  cases. 
We  must  bravely  and  loyally  meet  the  problem  because  it  is  ours,  and  at  the 
same  time  interests  the  entire  civilized  world.  It  is  necessary,  then,  to  proceed 
without  losing  sight  of  the  most  important  points,  which  are  not  necessary  to 
enumerate  here,  and  not  only  to  look  for  the  greatest  good  possible  in  the  facts 
for  Colombia,  but  to  try  to  patriotically  avoid  serious  evils  whose  character  and 
importance  might  perhaps  involve  worse  results  than  those  which  are  now 
circulated  around  by  the  best  intentioned  but,  perchance,  not  sufficiently  dis- 
cerning persons  who.  in  desiring  that  things  shall  be  as  they  are  not,  close 
their  eyes  to  the  reality  of  a  situation  which  if  prudently  looked  into  might 
be  converted  into  good  to  the  country,  but  if  unknown  or  carelessly  studied, 
will  not  fail  to  bring  about  dangers  and  complications  in  no  way  compensated 
by  good  intentions  or  friendly  words.  Civil  courage  demands,  in  cases  like 
this,  a  frank  expression  of  honest  conviction. 

In  view  of  which  we  have  the  honor  to  propose  the  following  drafl  of  si 
resolution : 

"That  there  be  a  first  debate  of  the  draft  of  a  law  by  which  a  disapproval 
is  ratified  and  authorizations  are  given  to  the  Government  to  negotiate  for  the 
opening  of  an  interoceanic  canal  across  the  Isthmus  of  Panama." 

Bogota,  August  29.  1903. 

Submitted  by  the  undersigned  members  of  the  committee  designated  by  the 
president  of  the  Senate: 

Pedro  Nel  Ospina. 
Manuel    Maria    Rodf; 

Upon  the  recommendation  of  the  honorable  Senator  Luis  F.  Campo. 

Pedro  Nel  Ospina. 

Office  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Senate. 

On  this  date  it  was  resolved  to  extend  the  time  for  consideration  of  the  draft 
to  which  this  report  refers  until  the  session  of  next  Monday,  and  to  publish 
prior  to  that  date  the  report  of  the  draft  of  the  law  in  a  loose  sheel 

September  2.  1903. 


Draft  of  a  law  which  ratifies  the  (Disapproval  and  gives  authorization  to  the 
Government  to  negotiate  for  the  opening  of  an  interoceanic  canal  across  the 
Isthmus  of  Panama. 

The  Colombian  Congress  decrees: 

Article.  Ratifies  the  rejection  made  on  the  ]2tli  of  August  in  the  Senate 
chamber  of  the  "convention  between  the  Republic  of  Colombia  and  the  T'nited 
States  of  America  for  the  construction  of  an  interoceanic  canal  between  the 
Atlantic  and  Pacific  Oceans."  signed  at  Washington  on  the  22<1  of  January  of 
the  present  year,  1903. 

Article.  Invests  the  President  of  the  Republic  with  all  flio  necessary  powers, 
in  order  that  at  any  time  he  may  deem  proper  and  opportune  he  may  negotiate 
public  treaties  or  conventions  for  the  opening  of  an  interoceanic  canal  across 
the  Isthmus  of  Panama,  or  contract  for  the  construction  of  such  a  work  with 
corporations  or  private  companies  who  may  give  sufficient  guarantee  of  being 
able  to  carry  the  work  to  completion  within  the  term  that  may  be  designated. 


448  DIPLOMATIC   HISTOEY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

Article.  The  foregoing  authorizations  shall  be  understood  to  be  granted  with- 
out prejudice  to  the  rights  acquired  by  the  New  Panama  Canal  and  Railroad 
companies,  which  companies  shall  continue  in  the  full  use  and  enjoyment  of 
their  privileges  and  concessions,  and  subject  to  the  fulfillment  of  their  obliga- 
tions, so  long  as  they  hare  not  come  to  an  agreement  with  the  Government  of 
Colombia  concerning  the  manner  of  transferring  to  another  company,  political 
entity  (corporation?),  or  foreign  government  the  rights,  concessions,  and  privi- 
leges growing  out  of  the  contracts  entered  into  with  them. 

Article.  The  Government  of  Colombia  shall  permit  the  railroad  company  of 
Panama  to  transfer  to  another  government  or  entity  the  rights  and  enjoyments 
which  said  company  may  possess  in  the  aforesaid  enterprise,  providing  that  the 
concessioner  and  concessionist  respect  the  contracts  which  are  now  in  force 
in  the  matter,  particularly  as  regards  the  recognition  of  the  obligation  to  pay  to 
Colombia  the  annual  rental  of  250,000  pesos  in  gold,  and  to  transfer  (to  her) 
the  absolute  ownership  in  the  enterprise  at  the  expiration  of  the  year  1967,  or 
pay  in  that  year  a  fair  price  for  the  work,  fixed  by  an  agreement  between  the 
two  parties  or,  in  case  of  disagreement,  a  sum  to  be  determined  by  the  govern- 
ment of  some  friendly  nation  as  arbitrator. 

Paragraph.  In  the  transfer  mentioned,  the  public  lands  referred  to  in  title  2 
of  the  contract  entered  into  with  the  railroad  company  on  the  15th  of  April,  1850, 
shall  not  be  included,  such  lands  shall  then  be  returned  to  Colombia.  The  lands 
used  by  the  line  of  the  railroad,  the  stations  and  other  appurtenances  shall  be 
turned  over  to  the  Republic  at  the  expiration  of  the  existing  concession. 

Article.  The  Government  of  Colombia  will  likewise  permit  the  New  Panama 
Canal  Company  to  transfer  its  rights  and  engagements  to  any  other  Government 
or  political  entity  providing  that  the  said  company  fulfills  the  following  condi- 
tions : 

First.  That  there  be  paid  to  the  Government  of  Colombia  when  the  transfer 
is  made  the  sum  of  50.000,000  francs. 

Second.  That  there  shall  not  be  included  in  the  cession  500.000  hectares  of 
public  land  which,  under  the  present  contract,  belongs  to  it.  These  lands  shall 
be  returned  to  the  full  control  of  Colombia. 

Paragraph.  The  50,000  preferred  shares  which  the  Republic  has  in  the  New 
Canal  Company  shall  be  canceled  as  soon  as  the  Government  receives  the 
50,000,000  francs  referred  to  in  the  second  part  of  this  article. 

Article.  In  the  negotiation  of  the  treaties  or  conventions  mentioned  in  this  law 
the  Government  of  Colombia  is  authorized  to  make,  if  it  shall  be  necessary,  con- 
cessions on  the  following  bases: 

First.  To  constitute  a  right  for  the  sole  end  of  constructing,  maintaining,  and 
operating  a  canal  and  its  auxiliary  works  upon  a  strip  of  Colombian  territory 
10  miles  wide,  from  the  Caribbean  Sea  to  the  Pacific  Ocean,  in  which  (zone) 
the  cities  of  Panama  and  Colon  shall  not  be  included.  The  duration  of  this 
right  shall  be  for  one  hundred  years  and  the  concessioner  shall  pay  for  this 
right  an  annual  rental  sum  of  $150,000  in  gold  up  to  the  year  1967,  inclusive, 
and  $400,000  from  1968  and  thereafter,  this  concession  being  renewable  at  the 
option  of  the  concessioner  for  periods  of  equal  duration  (one  hundred  years), 
provided  the  latter  agrees  to  increase,  in  the  proportion  of  25  to  100,  above  the 
maximum  bases  of  the  preceding  period,  the  annual  rental  sum. 

The  concessioner  shall  also  have  the  right  to  use  and  dispose  of  materials  of 
construction  which  are  within  the  zone  referred  to  and  of  the  waters  necessary 
for  the  construction,  operation,  and  maintenance  of  the  canal  and  its  auxiliary 
works. 

2\  Exproporiation  in  conformity  with  Colombian  law,  and  at  the  cost  of  the 
contracting  Government,  of  private  properties  in  the  aforementioned  zone,  and 
previous  indemnification,  at  the  cost  of  the  same  Government,  for  damages  and 
injuries  which  the  works  or  labors  undertaken  may  occasion  to  private  prop- 
erties. t  ^ 

3".  The  consent  of  Colombia  for  the  construction  of  ports  at  the  mouths  of  the 
canal  and  for  the  use  of  the  portion  of  the  sea  adjacent  to  them,  so  far  as  said 
use  is  necessary  for  anchorage,  repair,  and  protection  of  vessels. 

4\  The  free  use  across  the  zone  for  public  roadways  already  existing  or  for 
those  that  may  be  constructed  between  the  towns  and  districts  of  the  Depart- 
ment of  Panama. 

5a.  Exemption  from  customs  duties,  established  in  favor  of  the  foreign  con- 
tracting Government  for  the  introduction  of  machinery,  fixtures,  and  tools  neces- 
sarv  for  the  construction  and  maintenance  of  the  work. 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL.  449 

6\  The  neutrality  of  the  canal  and  explicit  recognition  of  the  sovereignty  of 
Colombia  over  all  its  territory  and  inhabitants. 

7".  For  the  judging  of  all  causes  or  litigations,  whether  the  interested  parties 
are  foreigners  or  Colombians  and  foreigners,  the  Colombian  Government  shall 
agree  with  the  foreign  contracting  Government  upon  the  establishment,  in  the 
constituted  zone,  of  mixed  tribunals  with  civil,  criminal,  and  admiralty  juris- 
diction, which  tribunals  shall  be  composed  of  jurists  named  in  equal  number  by 
each  of  the  two  Governments,  and  the  laws  and  regulations  which  they  may 
agree  upon  shall  be  in  force. 

8a.  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  Colombian  Government  to  maintain  order, 
security,  and  public  sanitation  by  means  of  police  and  the  national  army  in  the 
aforementioned  zone  of  the  canal ;  but  Colombia  shall  be  permitted  to  ask  the 
loan  of  such  service  from  the  foreign  contracting  Government,  and  in  such  event 
the  latter  Government  must  render  the  service  at  its  own  cost. 

9a.  And,  finally,  that  the  Bahia  del  Almirante  shall  be,  in  no  case,  included  in 
the  waters  which  are  at  the  disposal  of  the  contracting  Government,  and  that 
the  right  is  reserved  to  Colombia  to  utilize  as  seems  best  the  present  geographical 
communication  between  the  channels  of  the  Atrato  and  San  Juan  Rivers. 

Article.  The  Government  of  Colombia  shall  stipulate  in  the  treaty  or  conven- 
tion a  provision  for  forfeiture  in  the  event  that  the  concessioner  does  not  be- 
gin or  complete  the  work  on  the  canal  within  the  appropriate  and  sufficient  pe- 
riods that  may  be  fixed  for  that  purpose. 

Article.  It  shall  be  expressly  stipulated  that  any  disagreement  as  to  the 
meaning  or  interpretation  of  the  treaty  shall  be  settled  by  the  arbitration  of  a 
nation  friendly  to  both  contracting  parties. 

Article.  An  as  initial  compensation  for  the  granting  of  the  right  which   is 

referred  to  in  article ,  and  for  the  other  rights  and  concessions  authorized 

by  this  law.  the  contracting  Government  shall  pay  to  Colombia,  as  a  minimum, 
the  sum  of  $20,000,000  in  American  gold  upon  the  exchange  of  ratifications  of 
the  treaty. 

Article.  If  the  negotiation  shall  be  made  with  a  private  company  or  associa- 
tion, the  bases  shall  be  analogous  to  those  of  the  contract  entered  into  with  the 
French  company,  and  shall  primarily  stipulate  the  following  conditions: 

(a)   Recognition  of  the  legislation  and  jurisdiction  of  Colombia; 

(6)  Renunciation  of  diplomatic  intervention  in  case  of  any  claim  not  a  de- 
nial of  justice; 

(c)  Forfeiture  of  the  privilege  for  nonexecution  of  the  work  within  the  fixed 
periods; 

(tl)  Recognition  in  favor  of  Colombia  of  such  shares  in  the  enterprise  as 
may  be  the  estimated  value  of  the  works  already  made,  of  the  machinery,  fix- 
tures, and  tools  of  which  the  nation  shall  be  the  owner  at  the  expiration  of 
the  extension  granted  to  the  Canal  Company: 

(e)  The  complete  acquisition  of  the  enterprise  gratuitously  by  Colombia  at 
the  termination  of  the  one-hundedth  year  of  the  concession. 

Bogota.  August  29,  1903. 

Submitted  by  the  undersigned  members  of  tbe  committee  designated  by  his 
excellency  tbe  president  of  tbe  Senate:  Pedro  Nel  Ospina  :  Manual  Maria  Rodri- 
guez. Upon  tbe  recommendation  of  the  honorable  Senator  Luis  F.  Campo, 
Pedro  Xel  Ospina. 


Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  II<t>/. 

[Telegram.] 

United  States  Legation, 
Bogota,  September  ..'.?.  1903.     (  Received  1.36  p.  rh.,  23.) 
September  22,  5  p.  m.     The  proposed  law  concerning  the  canal 
treaty    has   not    been    discussed    since    the    first    reading.      No   new 
developments. 

Beahpre. 

42112— S.  Doc.  474,  63  2  —    29 


450  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA  CANAL. 

Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

No.  150.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Bogota  September  24,  1903. 
Sir  :  The  report  of  the  committee  with  its  project  of  law  authoriz- 
ing the  executive  to  negotiate  for  the  construction  of  an  Isthmian 
canal  has  not  yet  been  presented  to  the  Senate  since  the  first  debate. 
The  legislative  procedure  in  the  Colombian  Congress  is  as  follows : 
At  the  first  debate  the  project  of  law  is  presented,  and  if  it  is  a  sub- 
ject that  the  Senate  desires  to  consider,  it  is  passed.    If  rejected  it  is 
implied  that  the  Senate  does  not  wish  to  consider  the  matter  at  all. 

If  the  project  of  law  passes  the  first  debate  it  is  referred  to  a  com- 
mittee appointed  by  the  president  of  the  Senate.  The  committee  is 
given  a  reasonable  time  to  study  the  law  and  has  the  power  to  suggest 
amendments.  When  this  committee  reports  the  matter  comes  up  for 
the  second  debate,  and  this  is  the  crucial  test.  Aside  from  the  report 
of  the  committee  individual  members  may  propose  amendments,  and 
t  here  is  a  general  discussion  of  the  whole  question.  As  the  law  conies 
out  of  this  debate  it  will  pass,  for  the  third  debate  is  but  a  matter  of 
form. 

The  project  then  goes  to  the  Chamber  of  Representatives,  where  the 
same  rules  are  observed. 

A  law  may  originate  in  either  the  Senate  or  the  Chamber,  and  may 
be  introduced  by  any  member  thereof  or  by  the  ministers  of  the  Gov- 
ernment, and  the  ministers  may  take  part  in  all  legislative  debates. 

There  is  no  provision  for  conference  committees,  but  if  amend- 
ments are  made  to  a  Senate  law  by  the  Chamber,  it  is  sent  back  to  the 
oi  iginal  body  for  further  consideration. 

As  I  have  previously  reported,  the  proposed  law  authorizing  the 
Executive  to  negotiate  for  the  construction  of  a  Panama  canal,  passed 
the  first  debate  in  the  Senate;  it  was  then  referred  to  a  committee 
headed  by  Senator  Quintero  Calderon  as  chairman.  That  Senator  has 
since  been  very  ill,  so  that  nothing  has  been  done  toward  a  report. 
Yesterday,  the  23d  instant,  the  president  of  the  Senate  appointed 
Senator  Rivas  G.  as  chairman  of  the  committee  to  succeed  Senator 
Quintero  Calderon,  and  gave  him  five  days  in  which  to  prepare  a 
report. 

According  to  the  very  best  information  that  I  can  get  at  this  time, 
there  is  very  little  probability  of  the  law  passing  the  second  debate 
in  its  present  form.  The  enemies  of  the  Government  and  the  canal 
treaty  threaten  to  add  amendments  still  more  unfavorable  to  the 
United  States,  and  that  they  will  succeed  I  do  not  doubt.  I  had  an 
interview  this  morning  with  Gen.  Pedro  Nel  Ospina,  one  of  the 
strong  men  of  the  Senate,  and  he,  too,  is  of  the  opinion  that  modifica- 
tions are  certain  to  be  made. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

A.  M.  Beaupre. 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTOKY   OP   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  451 

Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

No.  154.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Bogota,  September  25, 1903. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  report  some  further  details  relating  to  the 
Panama  Canal  treaty. 

A  resident  of  the  United  States,  and  one  not  thoroughly  familiar 
with  the  people  of  Colombia  and  especially  of  Bogota  and  the  in- 
teriors, can  not  understand  the  embarrassments  and  trials  experi- 
enced by  this  legation  during  the  course  of  the  canal  negotiations. 

The  difficulty  of  getting  reliable  information  of  the  status  of 
affairs  has  been  almost  insurmountable,  because  public  opinion  and 
the  ideas  of  the  leaders  on  both  sides  have  varied  and  shifted  with 
the  succeeding  days. 

When  Congress  convened  and  the  first  votes  taken  in  the  Senate 
indicated  that  the  Government  had  been  sustained  and  that  its 
friends  were  in  the  majority,  most  people  believed  that  the  treaty 
would  be  ratified. 

As  time  went  on  and  the  Government  did  not  use  its  influence  in 
favor  of  the  treaty,  and  the  committee  to  whom  it  had  been  referred 
were  twice  given  an  extension  of  time  for  their  deliberations,  the  long 
wait  and  inaction  lessened  public  interest  in  the  main  question,  and 
there  was  little  discussion  of  it. 

Then  Senator  Caro  appeared  upon  the  scene  and  commenced  his 
violent  assaults  upon  the  Government,  and  the  executive  power  began 
certainly  and  surely  to  lose  ground.  Again  the  public  was  aroused 
into  vehement  opposition  to  the  treaty.  During  this  period,  and 
before  there  was  an  opportunity  for  another  reaction,  and  before 
there  was  any  real  discussion  of  the  merits  of  the  treaty,  it  was  pre- 
sented and  rejected. 

While  this  latter  period  lasted  it  seemed  impossible  to  get  the 
expression  of  the  real  opinion  of  any  of  the  senators,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  Obaldia,  Perez  y  Soto,  and  Velez.  It  is  a  positive  fact  that 
some  of  the  most  prominent  senators  avoided  me  because  of  the 
charges  frequently  made  that  bribery  was  being  resorted  to  by  the 
United  States,  and  the  consequent  fear  that  if  seen  in  conversation 
with  the  American  minister  they  would  be  under  suspicion.  This 
was  admitted  to  me  after  the  rejection  of  the  treaty. 

Mr.  Enrique  Cortez  was  one  of  the  two  men  who  defended  the 
treaty  in  public  articles.  Because  I  was  seen  making  a  social  call  at 
his  residence,  he  was  openly  accused  the  next  day  of  being  in  the  pay 
of  the  United  States  minister.  He  afterwards  intimated  to  my  son- 
in-law  that  for  the  above  reason  he  could  not  see  as  much  of  me  and 
my  family  as  he  wished. 

Of  course  these  matters  are  unimportant,  except  that  they  show 
the  annoyances  and  difficulties  one  has  to  contend  with  in  this 
country,  where,  after  all,  the  little  things  so  greatly  affect  and  in- 
fluence the  great  ones. 

The  minister  for  foreign  affairs  was  evidently  as  reluctant  as  others 
to  express  any  opinion,  and  it  was  very  apparent  that  he  did  not  wish 
to  discuss  canal  matters.  About  all  I  could  get  from  his  was  that 
conditions  were  "very  bad  "  or  "  a  little  better."  I  found  the  Presi- 
dent much  more  inclined  to  tell  me  his  hopes  and  fears  on  the 
question. 


452  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

General  Eeyes  said  to  me  that  he  had  advised  the  Government 
against  forcing  the  ratification  of  the  treaty  in  the  early  days  of 
Congress,  thinking  it  best  to  influence  public  opinion  into  a  more 
favorable  state  before  taking  such  action,  and  that  this  had  been  the 
Government's  view.  He  realized  that  this  course  had  been  a  serious 
mistake,  for  the  reaction  that  they  had  anticipated  had  not  come. 
His  own  actions  had  been  influenced  by  these  views,  and  it  was  only 
a  few  clays  before  the  rejection  of  the  treaty  that  he  came  out  in  the 
open  and  advocated  its  ratification.  I  believe  that  he  did  the  best 
he  could  after  that,  but  it  was  too  late. 

It  was  in  these  last  few  days  that  the  idea  presented  itself  to  mem- 
bers of  the  Government,  General  Reyes,  and  others,  that  it  would  be 
best  to  have  the  treaty  rejected  at  the  first  debate,  in  the  hope  that 
such  precipitous  and  unusual  action  would  arouse  the  coast  depart- 
ments into  vehement  protests,  send  exchange  up  enormously,  and  so 
disturb  the  country  that  there  would  be  a  reaction  of  public  sentiment 
which  would  enable  them  to  either  have  the  treaty  reconsidered  or  to 
pass  a  law  authorizing  the  President  to  complete  the  negotiations. 

But  their  plans  and  anticipations  were  built  upon  sand.  The  reac- 
tion they  hoped  for  did  not  come.  The  mere  announcement  that  a 
joint  congressional  committee  had  been  appointed  to  provide  ways 
and  means  for  the  construction  of  a  canal  was  enough  to  calm  the 
public  pulse,  for  the  public  has  continued  in  the  secure  belief  that  the 
United  States  would  never  seriously  consider  any  other  route  for  a 
canal  than  that  through  Colombian  territory:  that  she  was  abun- 
dantly able  and  would  in  the  end  concede  to  Colombia  a  much  greater 
recompense  in  money  and  more  favorable  concessions  generally;  that 
whatever  proposals  the  new  committee  would  make  would  be  ac- 
cepted by  the  United  States.  With  this  belief  abroad,  the  opposition 
to  the  terms  of  the  proposed  treaty  has  intensified  rather  than  other- 
wise, culminating  in  the  report  of  the  joint  committee  now  before  the 
Senate. 

With  all  this  shifting  and  changing  of  plans  and  sentiments,  it  has 
been  most  difficult  to  forward  to  the  department  reliable  informa- 
tion. I  have  several  times  been  about  to  telegraph  news  which  came 
to  me  from  what  should  be  absolutely  authoritative  sources,  when 
further  investigation  convinced  me  that  it  was  a  myth;  a  theory  of 
one  day  which  would  be  abandoned  the  next. 

In  connection  with  the  unreliability  of  the  information  given  out 
by  people  in  high  places,  I  might  mention  that  one  day  a  prominent 
Senator  told  me  very  confidentially  of  a  plan  concerning  the  treaty 
that  was  to  be  carried  out.  Within  an  hour  afterwards,  a  friend 
came  to  the  legation,  fresh  from  an  interview  with  the  same  Senator, 
who  had  told  him  that  a  plan  would  be  proposed  in  all  respects  dif- 
ferent from  the  one  explained  to  me.  When  I  informed  my  visitor 
of  my  conversation  with  the  Senator,  he  said:  "Mr.  Beaupre.  am  I 
going  mad  !  or  have  these  people  all  lost  their  senses  {  There  is  noth- 
ing but  lies  and  lies!  I  walk  two  blocks  to  hear  an  important  bit  of 
news,  and  in  the  next  two  hear  an  entire  contradiction,  both  coming 
from  the  same  source."  I  should  add  that  neither  of  the  plans  were 
ever  acted  on. 

And  so  it  has  been  from  the  beginning. 

I  am.  sir,  your  obedient  servant.  A.  M.  Beaupre. 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA   CANAL.  453 

Mr.  Bom  pre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

\  Telegram.] 

United  States  Legation. 
Bogota.  September  27,  1903. 
(Received  September  28.  1.12  p.  m.) 
September  27.  8  p.  m.    No  change  in  canal  matter.     Second  debate 
of  projected  law  will  probably  be  decisive,  and  this  will  occur  within 
a  few  days.     Additional  amendments  practically  certain. 

Beaupre. 


Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

[Telegram.] 

United  States  Legation, 
Bogota.  September  30,  1903.  (Received  10.55  p.  m.) 
September  30,  noon.  The  Senate  commission  appointed  at  the  first 
debate  on  canal  committee's  report  of  September  12,  to  prepare  the 
matter  for  second  debate,  have  prepared  their  report,  and  it  will  be 
presented  in  a  few  days.  It  approves  rejection  of  the  treaty  August 
12,  but  disapproves  the  proposed  law  authorizing  the  executive  to 
negotiate  for  the  construction  of  a  canal  under  mentioned  conditions. 
The  object  is  to  leave  the  Government  at  liberty  to  negotiate  a  new 
treaty  without  restriction.    There  is  a  prospect  that  it  will  be  adopted. 

Beaupre. 


Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

No.  164.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Bogota.  September  30,  1903. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  report  that  I  have  succeeded  in  obtaining 
from  Senator  Rivas  G.,  chairman  of  the  committee  to  whom  was 
referred  the  report  made  to  the  Senate  by  the  canal  committee  on 
September  12,  the  substance  of  the  report  which  he  will  make  in  the 
next  day  or  two.  As  I  telegraphed  to  the  department  to-day,  he  will 
recommend  the  approval  of  the  action  of  the  Senate  on  August  12  in 
rejecting  the  Panama  Canal  treaty  with  the  United  States.  He  will 
also  recommend  the  disapproval  and  rejection  of  the  proposed  law 
authorizing  the  President  to  make  treaties  or  contracts  f?>r  the  con- 
struction of  an  Isthmian  canal.  This  law  was  embodied  in  the  com- 
mittee's report  made  on  September  12,  and  contained  many  provisions 
binding  the  President  to  a  certain  line  of  action,  and  prescribing  the 
concessions  which  could  be  made,  of  which  I  have  previously  in- 
formed the  department. 

Senator  Rivas  said  that  by  simply  rejecting  this  proposed  law,  and 
adding  no  further  legislation,  the  Government  would  be  left  at  full 
liberty  to  negotiate,  without  restrictions,  on  such  terms  as  could  be 
obtained,  and  as  would  be  honorable  and  just  to  the  contracting  par- 
ties. He  felt  confident  that  his  plan  would  be  accepted  by  the  Senate 
and  confirmed  by  the  Chamber  of  Representatives. 

If  the  Senate  takes  this  step,  and  there  seems  to  be  a  reasonable 
probability  that  it  will,  the  canal  matter  will  stand  just  as  it  did  the 


454  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

day  after  its  rejection  on  August  12;  or,  in  fact,  as  it  did  before  the 
treaty  was  signed  in  Washington  on  January  22,  1903. 

It  is  said,  and  generally  believed  in  this  city,  that  there  is  a  project 
on  foot  among  certain  Senators  to  annul  the  arrangement  entered  into 
by  the  Colombian  Government  and  the  French  Canal  Company  in 
1900,  extending  the  franchise  and  privileges  of  that  company.  Even 
men  good  enough  to  be  candidates  for  President  are  advocating  this 
action  with  all  seriousness  and  solemnity.  It  is  urged  that  Congress 
has  full  power  to  either  annul  or  ratify  the  action  of  the  Government 
in  this  matter,  and  that  if  the  arrangement  made  extending  the  con- 
tract is  declared  null  and  void,  the  French  company's  rights  and  in- 
terests on  the  Isthmus  cease  to  exist,  and  Colombia  could  then  arrange 
with  the  United  States  to  receive  not  only  the  $10,000,000  offered  her, 
but  the  $40,000,000  offered  the  company. 

The  good  or  bad  faith  of  such  a  movement  is  not  of  sufficient  con- 
sideration to  prevent  an  attempt  being  made  to  carry  it  out,  and  were 
it  not  for  one  important  element  in  the  situation,  it  is  quite  among  the 
possibilities  that  it  would  be  successful. 

Senator  Caro  and  his  followers  are  powerful  factors  in  the  present 
Senate.  Senator  Caro  was  an  intimate  friend  and  advisor  of  Presi- 
dent Sanclemente,  under  whose  administration  the  franchise  of  the 
French  company  was  extended,  and  it  is  quite  certain  that  he  will  de- 
fend that  administration  to  the  extent  of  his  ability.  He  would  prob- 
ably favor  any  investigation  or  action  tending  to  the  detriment  of  the 
present  Government,  but  not  any  retrospective  measure  censuring  the 
previous  Government.  As  the  situation  now  is,  any  project  seriously 
opposed  by  him  would  stand  little  chance  of  success. 
I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

A.  M.  Beaupre. 

Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

[Telegram.] 

United  States  Legation, 
Bogota,  October  9, 1903.  (Received  October  14,  2.10  p.  m.) 
The  report  of  the  committee  referred  to  in  my  telegram  of  Sep- 
tember 30  will  be  presented  this  afternoon.  Informed  the  principal 
recommendation  will  be  to  annul  the  arrangement  made  with  the 
canal  company  in  1900  extending  its  concession.  By  such  action 
Colombian'  Government  evidently  hopes  to  renew  the  negotiations 
without  any  reference  to  company,  and  by  this  means  United  States 
of  Colombia  would  be  enabled  to  accept  the  money  compensation 
otherwise  accruing  to  the  company. 

Will  advise  further  as  soon  as  I  can  see  report. 

Beaupre. 


Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

[Telegram.] 

United  States  Legation, 
Bogota,  October  10, 1903.    (Received  October  14,  2.59  p.  m.) 
October  10,  1  p.  m.     Presentation  of  the  committee  report  post- 
poned until  12th.     My  telegram  of  September  30  states  the  first  two 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OP   THE   PANAMA  CANAL.  455 

clauses  of  the  report.  The  third  and  last  presents  a  project  for  law 
approving  extension  in  time  granted  canal  company.  Apparently 
this  is  proposed  with  the  expectation  that  the  Senate  will  negative 
the  project  and  annul  extension,  thus  accomplishing  the  object  stated 
in  my  telegram,  9th.  However,  I  think  in  case  most  of  them  vote, 
extension  in  time  to  the  company  will  be  annulled.  The  probability 
is  that  Congress  will  adjourn  without  taking  conclusive  action  on 
this  report. 

Beaupre. 

Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

No.  176.]  Legation  or  the  United  States, 

Bogota,  October  10,  1903. 

Sir  :  I  have  the  honor  to  make  reference  to  my  telegrams  of  yester- 
day and  to-day  concerning  the  probable  terms  of  the  report  to  be 
presented  by  the  commission  of  three  Senators  to  whom  the  project 
of  law  authorizing  the  Government  to  negotiate  for  the  construction 
of  an  interoceanic  canal  across  the  Isthmus  of  Panama  was  referred. 

I  had  been  given  to  understand  that  this  report  was  to  be  presented 
and  discussed  yesterday,  the  9th  instant.  On  sending  to  the  Senate, 
however,  I  was  told  that  the  canal  question  would  not  be  brought  up, 
and  several  Senators  informed  me  that  they  were  not  even  aware  of 
the  terms  of  the  report,  but  that  the  question  would  in  all  probability 
be  brought  before  the  Senate  on  Monday  next,  the  12th  instant. 

My  only  source  of  information  was  therefore  of  an  entirely  pri- 
vate nature.     Through  I  obtained  a  summary,  the  substance 

of  which  was  contained  in  my  telegram  to  the  department. 

As  I  telegraphed  the  commission  has  decided  that  there  is  no  need 
for  the  rejection  of  the  treaty  to  be  reaffirmed  by  the  Senate;  that 
neither  is  it  advisable  to  pass  the  special  law  authorizing  the  Govern- 
ment to  conclude  a  fresh  treaty  for  the  construction  of  an  isthmian 
canal  on  certain  basis,  thinking  it  best  not  to  tie  the  hands  of  the 
Government  with  hard  and  fast  conditions.  Lastly,  the  commission 
suggest  that  the  Senate  should  settle  the  question  of  the  extension 
of  time  to  the  New  Panama  Canal  Company  and  present  a  project  of 
law  approving  the  action  of  the  Colombian  Government  in  this 
matter. 

With  regard  to  this  extension  of  time,  known  as  "  proroga,"  there 
is  no  doubt  that  many  people  high  in  authority  have  cherished  the 
hope  that  some  means  might  be  found  to  undo  this  act  of  the  Sancla- 
mente  Government.  The  feeling  of  the  Bogota  public  on  this  ques- 
tion is,  moreover,  very  patent.  The  have  been  led  to  believe 
through  the  medium  of  the  press  that,  could  the  "proroga"  be 
annulled,  Colombia  would  thereby  inherit  the  whole  of  the  money 
compensation  otherwise  accruing  to  the  French  companj^.  How- 
ever, as  I  reported  in  my  No.  164  of  September  30,  1903,  I  am  in- 
formed that  there  is  no  danger  of  this  taking  place.  Such  men  as 
Senators  Caro,  Pedro  Nel  Ospina,  and  even  Perez  y  Soto  thoroughly 
renlize  that  the  preceding  Government  and  this  one  are  equally  in- 
volved in  the  "proroga."  The  Sanclamente  Government  agreed 
upon  the  grant  of  an  extended  time  limit,  while  the  Marroquin  Gov- 
ernment received  the  5,000.000  francs,  the  price  paid  for  that  exten- 


456  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL. 

sion.  Besides,  it  is  the  view  of  these  senators  that  the  "proroga" 
was  a  contract  concluded  in  good  faith  between  the  Colombian  Gov- 
ernment and  the  canal  company,  and  to  rescind  this  contract  will 
need  the  consent  of  both  parties  to  it.  It  is,  therefore,  thought  that 
while  the  "  proroga  "  may  be  used  as  a  means  of  bringing  up  a  dis- 
cussion in  Congress  with  the  view  to  censuring  the  Government,  no 
act  of  that  body  can  have  the  effect  of  annulling  the  extension  con- 
tract without  the  consent  of  the  other  party  to  it — the  New  Panama 
Canal  Company.  Because  of  the  attitude  of  these  and  other  sena- 
tors, there  is  decided  ground  for  believing  that  this  project  of  law 
approving  the  extension  will  be  passed. 

Monsieur  Mancini,  the  local  agent  of  the  canal  company,  is  taking 
an  active  interest  in  this  matter,  and  takes  every  opportunity  to  im- 
press upon  the  Senators  the  fact  that  even  should  the  contract  now 
held  by  the  French  Company  lapse,  the  Colombian  Government  would 
be  no  better  off  than  they  are  at  present,  for  the  reason  that,  in  such 
event,  all  the  material  would  remain  the  property  of  the  French 
Company,  leaving  the  Colombian  Government  merely  in  possession 
of  the  ditch  itself.  The  Panama  Railroad,  however,  remains.  Since 
the  French  Canal  Company  owns  the  majority  of  the  shares  in  that 
railroad,  it  has  practical  control  of  the  undertaking.  Now,  the  canal 
works  have  been  carried  on  within  the  zone  of  territory  controlled  by 
the  railroad  company,  and  could  only  be  continued  subject  to  the  con- 
sent of  that  company.  Therefore,  even  though  the  concession  held 
by  the  French  Company  lapse,  that  company  nevertheless  retains  con- 
trol of  the  territory,  and  its  previous  consent  would  be  required 
before  the  Colombian  Government  could  dispose  of  its  rights  over  the 
canal  zone. 

Monsieur  Mancini  informs  me  that  he  had  made  this  point  clear  to 
the  principal  members  both  of  the  Government  and  of  Congress,  and 
that  many  concur  in  his  views.  Moreover,  that  some  time  before  the 
rejection  of  the  Hay-Herran  treaty,  he  wrote  to  Mr.  Cromwell  in- 
forming him  that  in  all  probability  an  attempt  would  be  made  to 
override  the  rights  of  the  French  Company  and  to  call  in  question  the 
validity  of  the  extension  of  time  granted  to  it.  To  this  he  received 
no  reply  beyond  the  mere  acknowledgment  of  his  message,  and  his 
only  instructions  have  been  not  to  move  in  the  matter  at  all.  He 
therefore  concludes,  so  he  told  me,  that  the  United  States  Govern- 
ment and  the  French  Company  have  arrived  at  some  satisfactory 
understanding. 

I  desire  to  take  this  opportunity  to  state  that  my  position  during 
the  whole  course  of  the  canal  negotiations  has  been  a  most  embarrass- 
ing one.  1  have  thoroughly  realized  what  must  have  been  the  anxiety 
of  the  department  to  be  well  informed  of  the  progress  of  events. 
-And  yet.  although  it  is  nearly  four  months  since  Congress  met.  there 
have  been  but  four  or  five  days  during  which  the  canal  question  was 
considered,  from  the  initiation  of  the  discussion  up  to  the  present 
time.  I  have  kept  in  touch  with  the  principal  members  both  of  the 
Government  and  Congress,  and  whenever  I  have  succeeded  in  getting 
any  reliable  news,  which  has  not  been  often,  I  have  reported  it.  Dur- 
ing the  long  intervals  between  the  days  above  mentioned  there  was 
really  nothing  to  report,  except  street  gossip  and  wise  people's  pre- 
dictions. I  have,  therefore,  had  to  choose  between  adopting  the  atti- 
tude of  the  newspaper  reporter  and  forward  such  as  news,  or  limit 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL.  457 

myself  to  the  scanty  facts  I  was  able  t<>  gain  from  authentic  and  offi- 
cial sources.  I  chose  the  latter  course.  When  I  did  obtain  informa- 
tion which  I  deemed  of  sufficient  importance  to  cable,  I  have  had  the 
misfortune  to  have  some  of  my  most  important  messages  mutilated 
in  transmission. 

During  the  long  interims,  when  the  canal  treaty  was  buried  with 
inactive  committees,  there  was  apparently  an  absolute  lack  of  interest 
in  the  matter  on  the  part  both  of  the  Government  and  Congress. 
One  would  have  thought  that  the  question  was  some  matter  of  trivial 
or  temporary  importance  to  judge  by  the  attitude  in  official  circles. 
During  one  of  these  periods,  when  Congress  was  devoting  its  atten- 
tion to  resolutions  concerning  prominent  individuals  who  were  killed 
in  the  late  revolution,  the  Liberal  daily  El  Comercio  said  : 

"  Cover  with  laurels  dead  heroes,  praise  the  memories  of  your  illus- 
trious men.  make  panegyrics  over  this  who  have  served  in  your  cause; 
all  this  is  very  well,  and  we  do  not  wish  to  discuss  it;  but,  Mr.  Legis- 
lators, why  sing  songs  of  love  to  God  over  these  things  when  you 
ought  to  consider  the  great  questions  which  compromise  the  tran- 
quillity and  life  of  the  Republic?  " 

Except  then,  on  the  few  days  heretofore  mentioned,  there  was  no 
reliable  or  satisfactory  information  to  send  to  the  department. 
I  am.  sir,  your  obedient  servant. 

A.  M.  Beaupre. 


Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

[Telegram.] 

United  States  Legation, 
Bogota.  October  15,  1903.     (Received  6.20  p.  m.,  18.) 

The  report  of  the  committee  referred  to  in  my  telegram  of  the  10th 
lias  been  read  in  the  Senate,  was  ordered  printed,  and  will  probably 
be  discussed  next  week.  It  is  true  that  the  committee  proposes  a 
project  for  law  ratifying  the  time  extension  granted  canal  company, 
hut  the  tone  of  report  clearly  gives  to  understand  that  Colombia 
would  greatly  benefit  by  the  canceling  of  the  extension,  and  state- 
that  in  that  case  Colombia  would  next  year  obtain  posses-ion  of  all 
the  rights  and  properties  of  the  canal  company  [and]  thereby  be 
free  to  come  to  terms  with  Government  of  the  United  States  under 
most  advantageous  circumstances.  The  committee  provides  for  the 
case  of  the  annulment  of  time  extension  by  recommending  the  appro- 
priation of  the  necessary  sum  for  the  repayment  with  interest  of  the 
5,000,000  francs  paid  by  the  French  company. 

In  view  of  developing  sentiment,  my  opinion  of  final  result  is  less 
decided  than  stated  in  my  telegram  of  loth. 

Beaupre. 


Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  11 ay. 

No.  179.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Bogota.  Octobi  r  16,  1903. 
Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  report  that  in  compliance  with  the  request 
contained  in  a  newspaper  article  written  by  Dr.  Emilio  Ruiz  Bar- 


458  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA  CANAL. 

reto,  that  the  candidates  for  the  presidency  should  publicly  express 
their  views  on  certain  named  questions  of  national  interest,  Gen. 
Joaquin  F.  Velez  publishes  a  signed  communication  in  to-day's  issue 
of  El  Nuevo  Tiempo. 

It  is  apparent  that  General  Velez  will  be  the  candidate  for  Presi- 
dent to  be  named  in  opposition  to  the  one  selected  by  the  Govern- 
ment, for  he  has  demonstrated  far  more  strength  than  anyone  else 
mentioned.  As  the  election  will  take  place  on  the  first  Sunday  of 
December  next,  it  becomes  interesting  to  know  General  Velez's  views 
on  the  Panama  Canal  question,  and  I  inclose  herewith  a  copy  and 
translation  of  that  portion  of  his  communication  dealing  with  this 
subject. 

General  Velez  has  some  very  remarkable  ideas  concerning  public 
construction,  the  duties  of  foreigners,  etc.,  some  of  which  he  very 
freely  expressed  when  he  was  governor  of  the  Department  of  Bolivar 
in  a  letter  addressed  to  Mr.  George  Colvig,  United  States  consul  at 
Barranquilla,  on  February  11,  1902. 

A  copy  of  this  letter  was  set  to  this  legation  by  the  Department  in 
its  No.  385  of  March  26, 1902,1  as  one  of  the  inclosures  in  a  letter  from 
the  Board  of  Foreign  Missions  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
United  States,  dated  March  19,  1902,  and  I  respectfully  refer  to  it. 
I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

A.  M.  Beauprk. 

[Translation.] 

Overcoming  numerous  difficulties,  I  have  assisted  at  the  late  sessions  of  t ho 
Senate  with  the  main,  if  not  the  sole,  object  of  voting  against  the  Hay-IIerr;m 
treaty,  as  I  was  rejoiced  to  do  at  the  celebrated  session  of  August  12,  a  session 
at  which  that  august  body  rejected  that  treaty  in  first  debate  and  by  a  unanim- 
ity of  votes.  That  treaty  was  a  violation  of  our  fundamental  institutions,  of 
the  sovereignty  of  our  nation.  I  say,  therefore,  that  any  other  project  respect- 
ing the  building  of  an  interoceanic  canal  presented  to  the  Senate  and  Inning 
implicitly  or  explicitly  any  of  the  numerous  mistakes  which  rendered  the 
treaty  in  question  unacceptable  to  the  common  sense  and  dignity  of  Colombia, 
will  always  receive  my  adverse  vote.  The  integrity  of  its  territory,  the  attri- 
butes of  independence  and  sovereignty,  and  other  important  points  which  form 
the  principal  constituents  of  a  civilized  country  are  absolutely  inviolable.  This 
is  a  universal  and  unalterable  canon  which  may  not  be  altered  out  of  false 
considerations  of  worldly  or  territorial  purposes,  and  still  less  for  a  certain 
kind  of  pessimism  engendered  by  errors  and  false  views  in  governments  or 
by  vile  speculation.  Nations,  like  families,  in  their  development  and  gi'owth, 
must  use  their  own  forces  without  defiling  the  natural  laws  of  growth  with 
exotic  stimulants,  which  paralyze  or  unnerve  even  when  they  do  not  ruin. 
Foreign  aid  will  be  beneficial  under  our  own  intelligent  and  well-supported  di- 
rection. Our  beautiful  country  will  surely  acquire  in  epochs  that  are,  who 
knows,  not  far  off  the  tranquillity  and  maturity,  the  practical  spirit  and  the 
political  wisdom,  which  nations  of  all  races  have  been  without  for  long  periods 
of  time;  nations  which,  while  certainly  being  models  of  culture,  have  been 
powerless  to-do  good. 

Of  life-giving  wisdom  there  is  more  than  enough;  all  thai  is  wanting  is  a 
man  of  superior  talents  who  will  put  that  knowledge  into  practice.  In  one 
word.  1  desire,  as  do  many  of  my  countrymen,  that  any  canal  that  shall  cross 
our  isthmus  sliitli  be  for  all  time,  in  the  rigorous  significance  of  the  world,  a 
Colombian  canal;  and  if  it  is  not  to  he  a  Colombian  canal,  that  it  shall  not,  be 
constructed.  Better  limes  will  come  which  will  admit  of  the  carrying  out  of 
that  gigantic  work  without  detriment  to  the  national  existence,  and  in  a  way 
satisfactory  to  the  sentiments  of  patriotism. 

>  Published  in  Foreign  Relations,   1002,  p.  293. 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  459 

Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

No.  181.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Bogota,  October  16.  1903. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  inclose  herewith  a  copy  and  translation 
of  the  report  of  the  committee  to  whom  was  referred  the  project  of 
law  authorizing  the  Executive  of  the  Republic  to  negotiate  for  the 
construction  of  a  Panama  canal.  This  report  was  read  in  the  Senate 
on  the  14th  istant. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant.  A.  M.  Beaupije. 


[Inclosure  with  No.  181,  October  16,  1903,  from  Mr.  Beaupre — translation.] 
Majority  Report  of  the  Panama  Canal  Committee. 

Honorable  Senators: 

Colombia  desires  the  construction  of  a  canal  via  the  Isthmus  of  Panama  that 
will  bring  the  two  oceans  into  communication  with  ea"ch  other.  Since  it  became 
independent  our  Republic  has  considered  such  a  work  as  an  enterprise  of  uni- 
versal progress.  In  1825,  at  the  initiative  of  this  country,  an  effort  was  made 
to  organize  a  company  for  this  purpose.  In  1828  and  1829  the  liberator  presi- 
dent gave  wise  and  precise  orders  looking  to  the  construction  of  a  canal,  and  to 
that  end  a  scientific  commission  began  the  work,  made  a  survey  of  the  route, 
and  explored  the  entire  distance  between  the  two  oceans. 

On  the  27th  of  May,  1835,  the  Congress  of  New  Granada  issued  a  decree  for 
the  development  of  the  enterprise,  granted  a  privilege  to  Baron  de  Thierri.  and 
in  1838  sanctioned  a  legislative  decree  making  a  concession  to  the  company 
organized  in  France  and  New  Granada. 

After  several  years  of  exploration,  the  reports  of  the  company  were  so  satis- 
factory that  the  Government  of  France  appointed,  in  1843,  a  special  commis- 
sion which  finished  its  examination  with  the  most  hearty  support  of  the  Gov- 
ernment of  New  Granada. 

We  deem  it  unnecessary  to  enumerate  here  the  successive  efforts  and  con- 
cessions which,  during  seventy  years,  seconding  the  initial  thought  of  the  lib- 
erator, Colombia  has  made  in  behalf  of  the  interoceanic  canal. 

We  will  recall,  in  passing,  some  of  the  various  official  acts  designed  to  pro- 
mote the  work. 

Decree  of  Congress  in  1835;  legislative  decree  of  1838;  decree  of  Congress  in 
July,  1842 ;  legal  convention  of  1851 ;  official  instructions  of  1843 :  law  60  of 
1866;  treaty  of  January.  1869:  congressional  instructions  of  1869:  treaty  of 
January,  1870:  law  of  approval,  July,  1S70;  law  of  authorization.  1876;  treaty 
of  May,  1876;  treaty  and  law  of  approval,  1878;  extension  granted  by  law  107 
of  1890 ;  new  second  extension  granted  by  law  91  of  1892 ;  contract  for  exten- 
sion. April,  1893;  legislative  decree  granting  extension  in  1900. 

As  is  seen,  Colombia,  by  solemn  public  acts,  has  shown  that  she  considers  the 
construction  of  the  canal  as  a  great  national  work  and  as  a  necessity  for  the 
commerce  of  the  world.  Although  the  Senate  unanimously  rejected  the  Herran- 
Hay  treaty,  it  did  so  not  with  a  view  to  opposing  so  glorious  and  necessary  a 
work,  but  from  the  fairest  and  highest  motives. 

The  foreign  press  affirms  our  right  to  reject  said  treaty,  and  it  is  recognized 
by  the  chairman  of  the  Interoceanic  Canal  Committee.  That  remarkable  pub- 
lic man  who  for  more  than  a  quarter  of  a  century  has  fought  for  an  inter- 
oceanic canal  controlled  by  the  United  States,  hearing  of  the  rejection,  ex- 
pressed his  views  as  follows: 

"  If  the  Colombian  Congress  has  rejected  the  treaty,  it  is  because  that  country 
respects  its  constitution,  is  mindful  of  the  integrity  of  its  territorial  limits,  de- 
sires to  maintain  its  friendly  relations  with  the  United  States,  and  is  watchful 
of  its  financial  interests.  All  this  will  raise  that  Republic  in  the  estimation 
of  other  peoples  and  nations." 

We  will  now  examine  the  bill  ratifying  the  rejection  and  authorizing  the 
Government  to  negotiate  for  the  construction  of  an  Interoceanic  canal  via  the 
Isthmus  of  Panama. 


460  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

As  is  seen,  the  said  bill  lias  two  objects,  viz.  to  confirm  the  Senate's  rejection 
of  lilt'  treaty  between  the  Republic  of  Colombia  and  the  United  States  of 
America,  concluded  at  Washington  January  22,  1903,  and  to  invest  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  Republic  with  such  powers  as  will  enable  him  to  conclude  public 
treaties  or  conventions  relative  to  the  Panama  Canal  or  to  contract  for  the 
same  work  with  private  companies. 

We  consider  that  the  first  object  is  not  only  superfluous,  because  the  rejec- 
tion by  the  Senate  is  based  upon  constitutional  provisions  to  which  an  authentic 
interpretation  has  been  given  and  which  have  constantly  been  put  into  prac- 
tice in  the  same  sense,  which  interpretation  and  practice  render  the  rejection 
sound  and  correct  in  the  form  in  which  it  was  made,  but  also  that  the  new 
form  of  ratification  which  is  proposed  would  introduce  a  doctrinal  theory  dif- 
ferent from  that  already  established  and  accepted  for  seeking  to  decide  a  spe- 
cial case  of  grave  import,  to  which,  for  this  and  many  other  reasons,  it  would 
be  wholly  inapplicable. 

In  fact,  it  is  a  constitutional  provision  that  every  proposed  law  by. means  of 
which  the  legislative  houses  exercise,  or  seek  to  exercise,  their  powers  in  con- 
formity with  article  76  of  the  constitution,  may  be  rejected  in  any  of  their 
debates,  thereby  fulfilling  the  negative  in  contrast  to  the  positive  form,  both 
of  which  are  the  outcome  of  the  twentieth  provision  of  said  article. 

If  this  were  not  so,  the  members  of  the  houses  would  be  deprived  of  the  nec- 
essary freedom  in  their  opinions  and  votes,  ami  both  would  cease  to  be  delib- 
erative bodies. 

The  authentic  interpretation  to  which  we  refer  is  contained  with  ixreat  clear- 
ness in  article  323  of  the  rules  of  the  Senate,  identical  with  article  322  of  those 
of  the  house  of  delegates,  which  we  here  insert: 

"As  it  is  not  possible  for  a  treaty  to  be  constitutionally  approved  otherwise 
than  by  Congress,  with  the  sanction  of  the  Executive,  but  as  it  may  be  rejected 
by  the  Senate  or  House  of  Representatives,  like  any  other  proposed  law.  accord- 
ing to  the  constitution,  if  any  decree  should  come  from  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives totally  and  absolutely  rejecting  a  treaty,  it  shall  return  it.  stating 
that  the  Senate  is  apprised  of  its  rejection." 

When  the  said  article  76  of  the  constitution  provided  that  the  Congress  should 
exercise  by  law  the  powers  enumerated  in  that  article,  among  which  is  the 
power  to  approve  or  reject  public  treaties,  it  tended  to  prevent  the  exercise  of 
those  powers,  notwithstanding  the  prohibition  contained  in  paragraph  2  of 
article  78  of  the  same  constitution,  by  means  of  simple  resolutions,  but  it  did 
not  pretend  to  compel  the  legislators  to  vote  in  a  determinate  sense  or  to  pass 
laws,  even  those  most  necessary. 

The  second  object  of  the  proposed  law  concerning  authorizations  consists  in 
rinding  a  way  to  satisfy  the  desire  of  the  Colombian  people  regarding  the  exca- 
vation of  the  Panama  Canal  in  harmony  (says  the  proposition  approved  by  the 
Senate  on  the  13th  of  August  last)  with  the  national  interests  and  respect  for 
law.  which  has  been  on  this  solemn  occasion  the  guide  of  the  Senate. 

Your  committee  considers  that  the  proposed  law  relative  to  authorizations  is 
unconstitutional.     Article  120  of  the  constitution  says: 

"  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  President  of  the  Republic,  invested  with  the 
supreme  adminisiative  authority  *  *  *  10.  To  direct  diplomatic  and  com- 
mercial relations  with  other  powers  and  Governments  *  *  *  and  to  con- 
clude treaties  and  conventions  with  foreign  powers.  Treaties  shall  be  submitted 
to  Congress  for  approval  and  conventions  shall  be  approved  by  the  President 
during  the  recess  of  Congress,  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  ministers  and 
council  of  state.  The  proposed  law  shall  not  modify  the  provisions  of  the 
const  it  ution." 

Besides,  that  law  is  not  only  unconstitutional,  but  fails  to  meet  its  object 
bcause  the  instructions  which  would  be  given  to  our  diplomatic  agents,  instead 
of  being  necessarily  confidential,  would  be  pubic,  and  known  to  the  other  Gov- 
ernment or  to  the  contracting  company,  which  would  consequently  have  an  indis- 
putable advantage  in  the  case. 

Furthermore,  the  Senate  does  not  overlook  the  fact  that  if  this  law  concerning 
authorizations  should  be  passed,  and  if  the  Executive,  basing  his  action  upon  it 
as  upon  a  firm  basis,  should  expedite  a  negotiation  and  conclude  a  treaty,  he 
would  perhaps  give  occasion  to  the  power  with  which  the  treaty  was  concluded 
to  complain,  subsequently,  that  a  Congress  had  rejected  what  this  Congress  and 
the  Executive  branch  of  the  Government  had  presented  as  a  basis  of  nego- 
tiations. 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL.  461 

Moreover,  the  matter  being  carefully  considered,  no  negotiations  could,  in  any 
case,  he  properly  carried  on  upon  the  bases  that  would  he  presented  to  this 
Congress  by  that  law  ;  and  the  law  would  not  have  the  serious  and  efficient  char- 
acter which   every   law  ought  to  have. 

Your  committee  thinks  that  this  law  is  not  only  unconstitutional  and  ill 
adapted  to  meet  its  purpose,  but  that  it  is  unnecessary.  The  constitution  which 
has  provided  for  the  independence  of  the  different  branches  of  the  Government, 
thus  consecrating  a  principle  which  has  been  recognized  since  the  adoption  of 
the  constitution  of  1811,  has  also  traced  limits  for  those  branches,  and,  although 
it  leaves  to  the  Executive  the  power  to  conclude  treaties,  it  makes  it  absolutely 
obligatory  upon  him  at  the  same  time  to  submit  them  to  the  legislative  branch 
for  its  approval.  Article  57  says:  "All  branches  of  the  Government  shall  be 
limited,  and  shall  exercise  their  respective  powers  separately."  And  article  76 
says  that  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  Congress  "to  approve  or  reject  such  treaties 
as  the  Government  may  conclude  with  foreign  powers." 

Even  if  a  law  concerning  authorizations  should  be  passed,  the  treaty  that 
should  be  concluded  in  virtue  thereof  by  the  Government  would  necessarily  have 
to  be  submitted  to  the  approval  of  another  legislature,  which  might  fail  to 
pass  it. 

What  would,  therefore,  be  gained  by  a  law  that  would  give  no  force  to  the 
treaty  which  would  be  concluded  on  the  bases  and  authorizations  which  it  con- 
tained ? 

We  present  these  abstract  considerations,  and  they  would  all  be  pertinent  even 
if  the  Executive  were  free  to  conclude  treaties  looking  to  the  construction  of  the 
Panama  Canal,  but  it  is  known  that  the  Government  of  Colombia  is  not  at  lib- 
erty to  do  so;  a  contract  exists  which  binds  it.  and  this  link  has  not  been  broken. 

This  is.  in  our  opinion,  the  greatest  obstacle  to  the  law  in  question,  which 
would  be  premature  if  not  calculated  to  defeat  its  own  object.  We  think  it  use- 
less to  demonstrate  that  the  fundamental  point  to  which  the  attention  of  the 
Senate  should  be  confined  is  the  one  relating  to  the  validity  of  the  engagement 
already  contracted  by  the  Government. 

The  Herran-Hay  treaty  has  ceased  to  exist,  both  because  of  its  unanimous 
rejection  by  the  Senate  and  because  the  time  for  the  exchange  of  its  ratifications, 
the  22d  of  September,  has  already  expired,  without  any  extension  having  been 
provided  or  asked  for.  Consequently  the  state  of  the  case  is  the  same  that  it 
was  before  the  conclusion  of  the  treaty.  The  first  condition  therein  established 
was  the  permission  granted  to  the  new  company  to  transfer  its  rights.  The 
Senate  having  refused  to  accept  this  condition,  the  company  has  remained  under 
obligations  to  fulfill  its  contract,  and  the  Colombian  Government  is  still  under 
obligations  to  respect  all  its  provisions  and  to  cause  them  to  be  respected. 

How  can  it  be  asked  that  Congress  shall  enact  a  law  of  authorizations  to 
negotiate  with  a  foreign  government  when  the  rights  and  privileges  of  the  New 
Panama  Canal  Company  are  still  in  force? 

"The  treaty  concluded  April  4.  1893,  which  amended  those  of  March  23.  1878, 
and  December  10,  1890,  granted  to  the  New  Panama  Canal  Company  an  exten- 
sion of  ten  years — that  is  to  say.  until  December  31,  1904.  Consequently,  even 
without  a  new  extension,  the  company  will  be  in  the  full  enjoyment  of  its  rights 
and  privileges  until  October  of  the  coming  year.  But  there  is  another  con- 
sideration: The  legislative  decree  No.  721  of  1900  granted  to  the  company  a 
new  extension  of  six  years,  which  begins  to  be  reckoned  next  year  and  will  end 
October  31,  1910. 

One  point  now  remains  to  be  examined,  which  has  so  often  been  discussed  by 
the  press,  a  point  which,  now  that  the  matter  is  under  discussion,  should  be 
defined. 

Is  the  extensiou  granted  by  that  legislative  decree  valid  or  not?  In  the  first 
case — that  is  to  say.  if  it  is  considered  valid — seven  years  must  elapse  before 
the  extension  expires,  and  therefore  any  law  concerning  authorizations  seems 
premature,  as  throe  sessions  might  still  be  held  which  would  be  able  to  examine 
the  matter  and  to  legislate  concerning  it  with  better  data  and  evidence  than  the 
present  Congress  has:  and  if  the  extension  is  not  valid,  the  aspect  of  the  ques- 
tion changes  entirely,  and  the  basis  of  discission  will  be  quite  different.  By 
the  .'Ilsi  of  October  of  next  year — that  is  to  say.  when  the  next  Congress  shall 
have  met  in  ordinary  session — the  extension  will  have  expired  and  every 
privilege  with  it.  In  that  case  •the  Republic  will  become  the  possessor  and 
owner,  without  any  need  of  a  previous  judicial  decision  and  without  any  in- 
demnity, of  the  canal  itself  and  of  the  adjuncts  that  belong  to  it.  according  to 
the  contracts  of  1878  and  1900." 


462  DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OP   THE   PANAMA  CANAL. 

When  that  times  arrives,  the  Republic,  without  any  impediment,  will  be  able 
to  contract,  and  will  be  in  more  clear,  more  definite,  and  more  advantageous 
possession  both  legally  and  materially.  The  authorizations  which  would  then 
be  given  by  the  next  Congress  would  be  very  different  from  those  that  can  be 
given  by  the  present  one. 

-'""It  is  seen,  therefore,  that  it  is  the  duty  of  Congress  to  decide,  as  a  previous 
question  that  can  not  be  shirked,  concerning  the  validity  of  the  extension  granted 
in  1900.  We  venture  nothing  on  the  subject,  and  we  respect,  in  advance,  the 
decision  of  Congress  in  so  delicate  a  matter^  Supposing  that  it  does  not  ratify 
said  extension,  it  is  well  to  observe  now  fnat  it  would  be  necessary  to  include 
in  the  budget  the  appropriation  that  would  be  necessary  to  repay  to  the  com- 
pany the  sum  of  5,000,000  francs  with  interest. 

In  view  of  all  the  foregoing,  we  conclude  our  report  by  laying  before  you  a 
draft  of  a  law  whereby  a  contract  is  approved,  and  by  submitting  to  your  con- 
sideration the  following : 

Let  the  discussion  of  the  draft  of  a  law  whereby  a  rejection  is  ratified  and 
authority  is  granted  to  the  Government  to  negotiate  for  the  construction  of  an 
interoceanic  canal  across  the  Isthmus  of  Panama  be  indefinitely  postponed. 

Honorable  Senators : 

GUILLEEMO    QUINTERO   CALDERON. 

J.  M.  Rivas  Groot. 
Luis  Maria  Calvo. 


Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

[Telegram.] 

Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Bogota,  October  17,  1903. 
(Received  October  19 — 2.20  p.  m.) 
Have  received  information,  confidentially,  that  there  was  a  meet- 
ing of  the  cabinet  yesterday  to  discuss  the  question  of  renewing  canal 
negotiations  with  the  United  States  and  that  the  adjournment  of  con- 
gress will  be  followed  by  the  mission  of  special  envoy  to  Washington 
for  that  purpose.  The  president's  message  dissolving  the  congress 
will  be  delivered  probaly  before  30th  instant. 

Beaupre. 


Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

IS'o.  183.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Bogota,  October  19,  1903. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  inform  }rou  that  during  the  evening  of  the 
fateful  12th  of  August  last,  on  which  da}7  the  Hay-He rran  treaty  was 
rejected  by  the  Colombian  senate,  I  sent  the  department  three  tele- 
grams concerning  the  matter.  Two  of  these  reached  the  Department 
with  an  interval  of  about  a  week  between  them,  but  the  third,  the  one 
of  most  timely  import  of  all,  was  never  received,  or  at  least  has  not 
been  aeknoAvledged.  This  telegram  was  sent  at  10  o'clock  p.  m.  of 
that  day  and  was  confirmed  in  my  No.  101  of  that  date. 

I  beg  that  the  department  will  accept  the  cipher  dates  of  my  tele- 
grams as  in  all  cases  correct.  The  open  date  given  by  the  telegraph 
office  is  made  to  suit  its  convenience. 

1  am,  sir.  your  obedient  servant. 

A.  M.  Beaupre. 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  463 

Mr.  Beau  pre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

No.  185.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Bogota,  October  20,  1903. 
Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  inform  you  that  it  would  be  of  great 
utility  and  satisfaction  to  me  to  be  kept  posted  as  to  the  course  of 
events  on  the  Isthmus,  and,  if  not  inconsistent  with  the  rules,  I  would 
be  glad  to  have  it  arranged  so  that  our  consular  officers  at  Panama  and 
Colon  could  send  me  copies  of  their  dispatches  to  the  department  on 
the  political  situation,  and  that  the  consul-general  at  Panama  could 
telegraph  me  whenever  anything  of  unusual  importance  occurs. 
I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

A.  M.  Beaupre. 


Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

No.  18G.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Bogota,  October  21, 1903. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  inform  you  that  there  is  no  disguising  the 
alarm  existing  as  to  the  possible  action  of  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  should  the  feeling  of  disaffection  undoubtedly  existing 
in  the  Department  of  Panama  find  expression  in  overt  acts.  This 
alarm  took  the  form  of  a  heated  debate  in  the  Senate  yesterday  when 
the  Government  was  again  attacked  for  the  appointment  of  Senor 
Obaldia  as  governor  of  Panama.  The  reply  elicited  from  the  min- 
ister for  foreign  affairs  was  rather  significant.  He  read  an  extract 
from  the  treaty  of  1846,  in  which  the  United  States  guaranteed 
Colombian  sovereignty  on  the  Isthmus,  and  assured  the  Senate  that 
in  case  of  an  insurrection  in  the  Department  of  Panama  the  United 
States  would  be  bound  to  support  the  Government. 

In  the  course  of  this  debate  Senor  Caro  said  that  the  minister  for 
foreign  affairs  had  the  notes  of  the  American  minister  read  to  the 
Senate,  in  secret  session,  with  the  object  of  convincing  that  body  of 
the  necessity  of  accepting  the  Hay-Herran  treaty,  in  view  of  the 
menacing  attitude  outlined  in  those  communications.  Finding  in 
that  secret  session  that  the  Senate  disapproved  the  treaty  and  was 
determined  to  act  accordingly,  the  Government,  through  Senator 
Lorenzo  Marroquin,  its  spokesman,  obtained  a  resolution  demanding 
that  those  notes  be  read  in  public  session,  with  the  object  of  making 
it  appear  that  the  rejection  of  the  treaty  was  influenced  by  a  senti- 
ment of  indignation  at  the  threatening  attitude  assumed  by  the 
United  States  minister.  This  comedy  became  known  to  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  United  States,  and  it  has  resented  it.  He  was  not  in- 
fluenced, generally,  by  what  was  reported  in  the  newspapers,  but  the 
statement  universally  given  expression  to  in  the  press  of  the  United 
States  that  the  Washington  Government  resented  the  criticism  made 
against  the  United  States  minister  in  carrying  out  the  orders  ema- 
nating both  from  the  President  and  Secretary  Hay  can  not  be  with- 
out foundation.  This  was  only  one  instance  proving  that  the  Colom- 
bian Government  had  not  acted  in  good  faith  in  these  negotiations. 
The  refusal  on  the  part  of  President  Marroquin  to  sign  the  treaty 


464  DIPLOMATIC    IJLSTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL. 

before  presenting  it  to  the  Senate  was  another.  "Whatever  reasons 
the  Government  adduced  as  to  there  being  no  necessity  for  such  a 
signature  was  outside  the  point.  The  intention  was  clear  that  the 
treaty  was  not  signed  because  the  Government  wanted  to  have  » 
loophole  whereby  to  escape  their  obligations  to  the  United  States. 
In  other  words,  it  did  not  want  to  be  under  the  obligation  of  coming 
forward  to  defend  and  support  a  treaty  which  was  signed  by  its 
order.  It  was  bound  in  good  faith  to  the  United  States  to  do  so. 
It  Avas  for  Congress  alone  to  accept  or  reject  it.  Had  such  a  course 
been  followed  there  would  have  been  no  reason  to  look  forward  with 
alarm  to  the  attitude  which  the  United  States  might  adopt.  The 
Colombian  Government  had  nothing  to  fear  from  the  United  States 
had  it  clearly  done  all  in  its  power  in  supporting  the  treaty.  No 
responsibility  would  then  have  attached  to  this  country  for  the  rejec- 
tion of  the  treaty  by  Congress,  a  body  which  had  the  perfect  right  to 
reject  or  accept  as  it  pleased.  What  he  feared  was  that  the  United 
States  might  take  the  Isthmus  from  us  under  the  just  plea  that  we 
had  acted  in  bad  faith  with  them.  The  only  strength  which  a  small 
nation  has  is  its  good  faith. 

In  reply  the  minister  for  foreign  affairs  said  that  the  press  of  the 
United  States  was  given  entire  liberty  of  public  discussion,  but  that 
the  statements  made  therein  were  not  always  to  be  accepted  as  entire 
statements  of  fact.  That  he  had  just  received  positive  information 
that  no  resentment  was  entertained  by  the  Washington  Government 
for  this  Government's  action  in  having  Mr.  Beaupre's  notes  read. 

The  report  of  the  committee  on  the  canal  question,  which  was  read 
in  the  Senate  on  the  14th  instant,  has  not  yet  been  called  up  for  dis- 
cussion. As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  Government  and  Congress  are 
playing  a  waiting  game.  At  various  times  it  has  been  announced 
authoritatively  that  the  Congress  would  adjourn  at  a  given  date,  but 
thus  far  there  have  been  timely  reconsider;-. t ions  and  other  date- 
fixed.  Last  week  it  was  said  that  the  President  had  certainly  and 
definitely  concluded  that  an  adjournment  must  take  place  on  the 
30th  instant,  now  that  it  has  been  determined  that  the  closing  day 
shall  be  the  14th  proximo. 

A-  a  matter  of  fact,  the  Government  and  the  Congress  have  waited 
and  are  Availing  to  ascertain,  if  possible,  the  final  attitude  of  the 
Government  of  the  United  States  concerning  the  canal  matter  before 
the  life  of  this  Congress  is  ended. 

An  effort  was  made  by  the  Government  to  falsely  place  the  blame 
\'ny  the  rejection  of  the  Hay-Herran  treaty  upon  the  notes  addressed 
by  this  legation  to  the  minister  for  foreign  affairs,  and  the  result 
was  awaited  in  the  belief  that  this  view  would  be  accepted  by  the 
Government  of  the  United  State-.  This  attempt  failed;  the  situ 
ation  is  disturbing:  and  now  the  further  delay  is.  quite  apparently, 
for  the  purpose  of  awaiting  the  action  of  President  Roosevelt  in 
his  message  to  the  special  session  of  our  Congress  which  is  to  meet, 
it  is  understood  here,  on  the  9th  proximo,  and  the  attitude  of  that 
Congress  upon  receiving  the  President's  message. 
I  am.  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

A.  M.  Beaupre. 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL.  465 

Mr.  Hay  to  Mr.  Beaupre. 

[Telegram.] 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  October  22,  1903. 
Referring  to  your  telegram  17th,  if  you  find  disposition  on  the 
part  of  Colombia  to  ask  terms  more  favorable  to  Colombia  than  those 
heretofore  negotiated,  you  may  intimate  orally,  but  not  in  writing, 
that  it  will  be  useless  to  send  a  special  envoy. 

Hay. 


Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

No.  188.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Bogota,  October  23, 1903. 
Sir  :  Referring  to  my  No.  160  l  of  September  29,  1903,  concerning 
the  taxes  and  charges  on  shipping  at  Panama,  I  have  the  honor  to 
inclose  herewith  a  copy  and  translation  of  a  note  from  the  minister 
for  foreign  affairs  on  the  subject. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant,  A.  M.  Beaupre. 


[Inclosure   with   No.   188,   October   23,    1903— Translation.] 

Ministry  oi    Foreign   Relations, 

Bogota,  October  10,  1903. 

Mr.  Minister  :  Oa  account  of  the  presence  of  an  alarming  degree  of  bubonic 
plague  in  various  points  on  tbe  Pacific  coast  it  was  determined  to  use  a  Govern- 
ment ship  for  a  lazaretto  in  the  Bay  of  Panama,  and  in  accordance  with  law  106 
of  1S92.  authorizing  the  organization  of  the  sanitary  service  in  the  marine  ports 
of  the  Republic  in  time  of  peace  and  placing  an  extraordinary  contribution  on  the 
boats  which  arrive  in  Colombian  ports,  the  governor  of  the  department,  using 
these  legal  rights,  issued  the  decrees  of  June  24  and  August  4  of  this  year,  by 
which  a  tax  was  temporarily  levied  on  boats  of  more  than  1.000  tons  register 
arriving  in  the  ports  of  Panama  and  Colon,  proceeds  of  which  were  to  defray 
the  expenses  of  that  lazaretto.  The  urgency  of  the  case  prevented  notice  of  such 
police  measures  being  given  to  the  public  sooner  than  their  insertion  in  the 
official  publication. 

The  ports  of  Panama  and  Colon  being  united  by  rail,  the  same  measures  taken 
in  either  of  these  benefit  the  other  and  ai'e  taken  not  only  to  attend  to  transit 
sickness  and  to  avoid  contagion,  but  to  favor  navigation  in  both  oceans.  This 
shows  how  fair  it  is  that  not  only  the  ships  arriving  at  Panama  but  also  those 
entering  Colon  should  pay  the  tax  for  the  plague  hospital. 

To  facilitate  foreign  commercial  relations  as  those  of  importation,  exportation, 
and  transit,  etc.,  which  are  or  are  not  permitted  to  be  executed  in  the  ports  or 
the  Republic,  the  law  divides  these  into  free  and  closed  ports. 

The  designation  of  free  ports  does  not  come  from  any  international  pact, 
neither  does  it  signify  that  the  vessels  arriving  in  those  ports  are  exempt  from 
the  payment  of  taxes  or  contributions.  In  the  binding  treaty  between  Colombia 
and  the  United  States  it  is  stipulated  that  the  citizens  of  each  of  the  contracting 
parties  may  frequent  all  the  coasts  and  territories  of  the  other,  and  reside 
therein  and  do  business  in  all  classes  of  productions,  manufactured  goods,  and 
merchandise;  that  they  will  enjoy  all  the  rights,  privileges,  and  exemptions  in 
navigation  and  commerce  which  the  citizens  of  that  country  enjoy  or  may  enjo> 
in  accordance  with  the  laws,  decrees,  and  uses  established  there,  and  that  no 
other  or  higher  duties  will  be  levied  on  the  tonnage  of  the  respective  ships. 


1  Not  printed. 
42112— S.  Doc.  474,  63-2 30 


466  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA   CANAL. 

The  free  transit  of  the  Isthmus  of  Panama  is  conceded  to  the  citizens  of  the 
United  States  and  the  transport  of  their  products,  manufactures,  or  merchandise 
of  lawful  commerce  without  the  imposition  of  other  taxes  or  contributions  other 
than  those  placed  on  the  natural  products  of  the  country  (Panama)  under  simi- 
lar circumstances. 

There  are  these  advantages  of  an  equal  treatment,  and  there  is  no  other  in 
favor  of  the  ships  of  the  United  States. 

In  the  polite  note  of  September  29  last  your  excellency  informs  me  that  you 
have  received  a  protest  from  the  vice  consul  general  of  the  United  States  against 
the  taxes  and  contributions  on  shipping  levied  in  the  port  of  Panama,  and  es- 
pecially against  said  decree  No.  91. 

In  reference  to  the  different  points  treated  of  in  said  note,  in  which  your 
excellency  is  also  pleased  to  express  the  hope  that  means  will  be  taken  in  the 
matter,  I  have  the  honor  to  inform  your  excellency,  in  addition  to  what  I  have 
expressed  in  this  note,  that  according  to  the  information  which  has  been  given 
me  in  this  matter,  it  is  hoped  that  in  a  short  time  all  fears  of  the  invasion  of  the 
huhonic  plague  on  the  Isthmus  will  have  ceased,  and  immediately  the  tax  levied 
for  the  lazaretto  will  be  rescinded. 

I  avail  myself  of  this  opportunity,  etc., 


His  Excellency  A.  M.  BeauprI?;,  etc. 


Urns  Carlos  Rico. 


Mr.  Beaapre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

[Telegram.] 

United  States  Legation, 

Bogota,  October  23.  1903. 
(Received  October  24,  5.23  p.  m.) 
October  23,  11  a.  m.  The  report  of  the  committee  not  yet  dis- 
cussed. It  appears  to  me  the  Congress  is  playing  a  waiting  game, 
evidently  with  the  object  of  ascertaining  attitude  of  the  President 
of  the  United  States  in  his  message  to  the  extra  session  of  Congress 
and  of  that  body.  It  is  said  that  Congress  will  not  adjourn  until 
14th  proximo.  Minister  for  foreign  affairs  gives  me  private  in- 
formation that  at  the  next  meeting  the  Cabinet  will  again  discuss 
canal  question,  it  being  proposed  to  send  an  envoy  extraordinary  and 
minister  plenipotentiary  and  also  a  commission  of  three  prominent 
men  to  Washington  to  renew  negotiations. 

Bkaupre. 


Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

[Telegram.] 

United  States  Legation. 
Bogota,  October  27.  1903.  (Received  10.15  p.  m..  29.) 
October  27,  7  p.  in.  Report  of  the  committee  was  discussed  to-day 
in  the  Senate.  Only  four  Senators  spoke.  Caro  opposed  (lie  pro- 
posed laAv  authorization  as  unconstitutional,  on  the  ground  that  any 
future  action  which  the  Government  might  take  and  was  free  to  take 
was  subject  to  approval  of  future  Congress,  and  that  this  Congress 
has  no  right  to  bind  the  action  of  the  next  one.  He  strongly  de- 
nounced the  treaty  itself  and  the  selfish  motives  of  the  United  States 
in  desiring  such  a  treaty.  Senator  Groot.  one  of  the  authors  of  the 
report,  spoke  in  the  same  tone.     Senator  Ospina  defended  the  pro- 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  467 

posed  law  of  authorization.  Finally  Senator  Arango,  after  pointing 
out  the  futility  of  the  proposed  law,  which  was  only  the  treaty  with 
modifications  which  the  Government  of  the  United  States  has  de- 
clared unacceptable,  proposed  that  the  discussion  of  the  whole  mat- 
ter be  postponed  indefinitely,  as  there  was  no  time  for  the  Senate  to 
discuss  it.  The  Senators  appeared  to  agree  to  the  proposal,  but  the 
presiding  officer  closed  the  debate  without  vote  having  been  taken. 
Action  may  be  taken  to-morrow  or,  as  is  also  probable,  the  matter 
may  be  allowed  to  drop  entirely.  Congress  will  adjourn  on  the 
31st  instant. 

Beaupre. 


Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

\  Telegram.] 

United  States  Legation. 

Bogota,  October  29,  1903. 
(Received  6.55  p.  in.,  November  6.) 
October  29.  1  p.  m.     Please  give  instructions  to  consul  general  at 
Panama ;  keep  me  advised  by  cable  matters  of  consequence. 
Canal  situation  unchanged. 

Beaupre. 


Mr.  Hay  to  Mr.  Beaupre. 

[Telegram.] 

Department  of  State, 
Washington,  October  30, 1903. 
You  may  avail  yourself  of  leave  of  absence  under  authorization 
cabled  to  you  Julv  9. 

Hay. 


Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

[Telegram.] 

United  States  Legation  at  Bogota, 
October  31, 1903.     (Eeceived  November  6,  1903.) 
Congress  adjourned  to-day.     No  action  has  been  taken  upon  the 
last  report  concerning  the  canal.     Therefore  nothing  more  than  the 
vote  of  August  12  rejecting  treaty  done. 

The  people  here  in  great  anxiety  over  conflicting  reports  of  seces- 
sion movements  in  the  Cauca  and  Panama. 

Beaupre. 


Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

[Telegram.] 

United  States  Legation, 

Bogota,  November  1, 1903. 
(Received  7.15  p.  m.,  November  8.) 
November  1.  10  a.  m.     The  Government  issued  manifesto  to  the 
nation  to-day  severely  criticising  acts  of  Congress  and  discussing 


468  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

important  questions  which  have  been  presented,  and  unsatisfactorily 
dealt  with.  With  regard  to  canal,  states  that  Colombian  charge 
d'affaires  has  been  instructed  to  inform  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  that  the  Colombian  Government  would  consider  new  negotia- 
tions, which  it  is  believed  will  be  accepted  by  the  next  session  of  Con- 
gress. Therefore,  if  the  Government  of  the  United  States  still  desires 
to  open  canal,  which  it  is  presumed  that  it  does,  as  neither  by  act  nor 
word  has  it  shown  any  other  intention,  it  is  to  be  hoped  that  the  great 
work  will  be  carried  out  in  the  end  through  Colombian  territory. 

I  took  the  opportunity  of  informal  visit  to  the  President  yesterday 
to  inform  him  of  substance  your  cipher  telegram  October  22. 

Beaupre. 


Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

No.  199.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

/  Bogota,  November  2,  1903. 

I  Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  report  that  the  extraordinary  session  of 
the  Colombian  Congress  was  adjourned  at  half  past  2  o'clock  on 
Saturday  the  31st  ultimo. 

In  so  far  as  the  Hay-Herran  treaty  for  the  construction  of  a 
Panama  Canal  is  concerned,  the  only  definite  and  recorded  action  of 
this  Congress  is  the  vote  taken  on  August  12,  1903,  rejecting  that 
treaty. 

Under  article  76  of  the  Colombian  constitution.  Congress  can  exer- 
cise its  functions  in  certain  cases  by  the  enactment  of  laws,  and  in  that 
way  only.  Thus  it  is  that  when  such  matters  are  presented,  whether 
by  individual  members,  ministers  of  the  Government,  or  by  commit- 
tees, they  are  accompanied  by  what  is  termed  "  projects  of  law." 
Under  section  20  of  said  article  76  of  the  constitution,  the  Congress, 
by  making  a  law  for  that  purpose,  may  "  approve  or  disapprove  the 
treaties  entered  into  by  the  Government  with  foreign  powers."  The 
vote  taken  in  the  Senate  on  August  12,  1903,  rejecting  the  treaty,  is 
not  understood  to  have  been  a  legal  or  constitutional  disapproval  of 
that  pact.  It  was,  in  effect,  an  expression  of  opinion;  but  since  no 
other  action  on  this  question  was  taken,  and  the  treaty  was'  not  ap- 
proved within  the  time  fixed  for  the  exchange  of  ratifications,  it  has 
died  by  limitation  rather  than  by  any  legal  enactment  of  the  Colom- 
bian Congress. 

It  has  been  understood  for  some  time  that  in  all  probability  no 
further  action  would  be  taken  by  Congress  in  this  matter,  and  when 
it  was  finally  brought  up  in  the  last  days  before  adjournment  it  was 
more  for  the  purpose  of  giving  vent  to  individual  opinion  than  any- 
thing else. 

On  Tuesday,  the  27th  ultimo,  tlie  report  of  the  committee  on  the 
project  of  law  authorizing  the  President  to  negotiate  for  the  con- 
struction of  an  interoceanic  canal  was  brought  before  the  Senate  for 
discussion.    Four  senators  spoke  during  the  debate. 

Senator  Caro  opposed  it  on  the  ground  that  to  grant  an  authoriza- 
tion to  the  Government  to  conclude  a  treaty,  on  certain  bases,  was  an 
absurdity.  It  was  impossible  to  limit  the  power  of  the  Executive, 
who  could  conclude  any  treaty  it  pleased  and  submit  it  to  the  next 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CAXAL.  469 

Congress.  This  project  of  law  was,  moreover,  an  unconstitutional 
one,  as  this  Congress  had  no  right  to  arrogate  to  itself  the  powers  and 
privileges  which  would  legitimately  fall  to  its  successor.  He  then 
turned  to  the  attitude  of  the  Senate  on  the  canal  question.  It  had 
been  correct  on  the  main  point  from  the  beginning.  Mistakes  there 
had  been,  but  they  were  mistakes  of  which  the  Government  and  not 
the  Senate  had  been  guilty.  The  first  great  error  had  been  the  read- 
ing of  the  correspondence  which  had  passed  between  the  United  Slates 
minister  and  the  minister  for  foreign  affairs  prior  to  the  rejection  of 
•the  treaty.  It  had  made  it  appear  as  if  the  Senate  had  rejected  the 
treaty  as  a  protest  against  the  attitude  of  the  United  States,  and  this 
was  tantamount  to  a  reflection  on  the  conduct  of  President  Roosevelt 
and  his  Secretary  of  State,  under  whose  instructions  their  representa- 
tive in  Bogota  had  acted.  This  was  how  the  matter  had  been  viewed 
in  the  United  States.  In  support  of  this  statement  he  quoted  various 
extracts  taken  from  United  States  newspapers.  Among  these  was  an 
interview  by  Walter  Wellman,  who.  Senator  Caro  stated,  was  well 
aware  of  the  opinion-  held  by  the  Department  of  State.  He  then 
emphatically  stated  that  the  reading  ()f  the  American  minister's  notes 
had  nothing  to  do  with  the  action  taken  by  the  Senate  with  regard  to 
the  Hav-Herran  treaty. 

The  Senate  rejected  that  treaty  because  its  terms  were  a  violation 
of  the  constitution  and  harmful  to  the  interest  of  the  Republic.  No 
reflection  could  be  cast  on  that  body  for  its  action,  but  the  minister 
for  foreign  affairs,  in  causing  the' notes  to  be  read,  had  made  it  appear 
that  the  Senate  was  actuated  by  motives  which  did  not  exist.  The 
second  great  error  committed  by  the  Government  was  the  appoint- 
ment of  Sehor  Obaldia  to  the  governorship  of  the  Department  of 
Panama.  The  election  of  General  Reyes  to  the  Presidency  of  Colom- 
bia meant  the  election  of  a  Congress  next  year  pledged  to  pass  what- 
ever canal  treaty  the  Government  should  present.  Sehor  Obaldia 
was  therefore  a  supporter  of  the  candidacy  of  General  Reyes,  and  it 
was  for  this  reason  that  he  was  appointed  governor  of  the  Isthmus. 
But  Sehor  Obaldia  was  before  all  an  isthmanian,  and  he  Avas  known 
to  have  said  that  should  the  department  rise  in  favor  of  the  canal  he 
would  be  with  Panama.  Therefore  the  Government  had  for  elec- 
tioneering purposes  endangered  their  possession  of  the  Isthmus.  He 
read  to  the  Senate  an  extract  from  the  New  York  Herald,  containing 
an  interview  with  Governor  Obaldia.  in  which  the  above-mentioned 
facts  were  stated,  and  in  which  Sehor  Obaldia  said  that,  before 
leaving  Bogota,  he  had  had  several  interviews  with  the  American 
minister,  to  whom  he  had  communicated  these  facts,  which  Mr. 
Beaupre  had  doubtless  telegraphed  to  his  Government.  The  reading 
of  this  extract  caused  much  excitement.  Senator  Caro  pointed  out 
that  whatever  the  views  of  President  Roosevelt  may  be,  this  much 
was  certain,  he  had  no  intention  of  adopting  the  Nicaragua  route. 
The  only  possible  explanation  of  the  present  inactive  attitude  of  the 
United  States  Government  was  that  events  on  the  Isthmus  were  being 
watched.  Senator  Caro  then,  for  the  first  time,  openly  attacked  the 
policy  of  the  United  States  Government.  Colombia  was  told  that  the 
construction  of  the  canal  was  essential  to  the  commerce  and,  there- 
fore, to  the  progress  of  the  world,  and  that  she  should  not,  therefore, 
stand  in  the  way  of  so  important  an  undertaking  merely  because  of 


470  DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA  CANAL. 

the  loss  of  sovereignty  over  a  small  strip  of  territory.  But  why,  he 
asked,  did  the  United  States  wish  to  deprive  Colombia  of  her 
sovereignty  ?  It  was  because  the  United  States  wanted  the  canal  for 
themselves,  and  not  for  commerce  and  civilization. 

Senator  Rivas  Groot,  who  had  reported  to  the  Senate  against  the 
granting  of  authorization  to  the  Government  to  conclude  a  canal 
treaty,  then  spoke,  supporting  the  views  expressed  by  Senator  Caro. 

Senator  Pedro  Nel  Ospina's  speech  was  devoted  to  an  explanation 
and  defense  of  the  law  of  authorization  which  he  had  drawn  up. 
Neither  of  these  speeches  had  any  special  significance. 

The  day's  debate  was,  however,  closed  with  an  important  speech  by 
Senator  Arrango,  which  was  the  outcome  of  a  tacit  understanding 
with  the  majority  of  his  colleagues.  He  pointed  out  that  this  project 
of  law,  worded  in  general  terms,  authorizing  the  President  to  con- 
clude a  canal  treaty  with  a  foreign  power  or  company,  was  a  clumsy 
attempt  to  befog  the  real  issue.  It  was  perfectly  well  known  that  a 
canal,  if  constructed  at  all,  would  have  to  be  constructed  by  the 
United  States  Government,  and  it  would,  therefore,  be  more  straight- 
forward to  frankly  own  that  fact  instead  of  vaguely  talking  of  for- 
eign powers  and  companies.  When  the  Hay-Herran  treaty  was 
brought  forward  for  discussion  it  was  believed  that  the  Senate  would 
be  willing  to  ratify  the  treaty,  with  essential  modifications.  The 
United  States  minister  had,  however,  made  it  clear  that  his  Govern- 
ment would  not  accept  these  modifications,  and  it  was,  therefore, 
decided  to  reject  the  treaty.  Now,  this  project  of  law  was  nothing 
more  or  less  than  the  Hay-Herran  treaty,  with  the  modifications  nec- 
essary to  have  rendered  it  acceptable  to  the  Senate.  If  this  was  the 
course  proposed,  it  would  be  a  more  reasonable  policy  to  reconsider 
the  Hay-Herran  treaty,  put  in  the  modifications  desired  by  the  Sen- 
ate, and  return  it,  thus  amended,  to  the  United  States  Government 
for  their  consideration.  An  important  event  had,  however,  occurred, 
which  rendered  any  consideration  of  the  canal  question  useless.  The 
vice  president  had  decided  to  dissolve  Congress  on  the  31st  instant. 
There  remained,  therefore,  no  time  for  deliberation,  and  the  only 
] possible  course  for  the  Senate  to  adopt  was  to  decide  on  the  indefinite 
suspension  of  any  further  discussion  regarding  the  canal  question. 

The  Senate  then  adjourned. 

On  the  following  day,  the  28th  ultimo,  news  of  an  insurrectionary 
outbreak  in  the  Department  of  Panama  leaked  out,  and  three  mem- 
bers of  the  cabinet  were  summoned  to  the  Senate  for  the  purpose  of 
eliciting  information  on  the  subject.  On  the  arrival  of  the  minister 
of  war,  however,  the  Senate  was  declared  in  secret  session. 

It  was  given  out  that  the  trouble  on  the  Isthmus  consisted  merely 
of  an  invasion  of  70  men  from  Nicaragua.  The  president  of  the 
Senate,  however,  informed  me  that  there  was  much  anxiety,  both  on 
the  part  of  the  Government  and  Congress,  as  to  the  turn  events  were 
taking  on  the  Isthmus. 

The  session  of  the  20th  occupied  itself  with  the  passing  of  laws  of 
minor  imporance  and  routine  work. 

On  Friday,  the  30th,  the  Panama  Canal  question  was  treated  for 
the  last  time.  The  Senate  unanimously  resolved  to  adopt  the  course 
proposed  by  Senator  Arrango  in  his  speech  of  the  27th,  which  was  to 
indefinitely  suspend  the  consideration  of  the  matter. 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  471 

The  Government  thus  remains  with  ordinary  authority  to  treat 
the  question  afresh,  subject  to  the  approval  of  a  future  Congress. 

Senator  Caro  spoke  with  some  heat  to  the  effect  that  the  Govern- 
ment had  rendered  it  impossible  for  the  Congress  to  carry  out  its 
work  by  introducing  extra  laws  which  had  not  been  treated  of  in  the 
message,  and  then  cutting  short  the  deliberations  of  the  legislative 
body. 

Saturday,  the  31st  ultimo,  was  the  last  day  of  Congress.  The  mem- 
bers of  the  Senate  met  in  the  forenoon,  and  the  minister  of  war,  who 
had  been  specially  summoned,  was  present.  He  was  again  ques- 
tioned, this  time  publicly,  as  to  the  state  of  affairs  in  the  Department 
of  Panama.  The  telegram  received  from  Governor  Obaldia  had,  it 
appeared,  been  badly  transmitted,  but  he  gathered  from  the  message 
that  an  invasion  of  70  men  from  Nicaragua  and  a  rising  in  the  fron- 
tier province  of  Veraguas  had  occurred  simultaneously.  The  secre- 
tary of  the  Senate  informed  me  that  in  the  telegram  it  was  not  clear 
whether  the  number  of  invaders  was  70  or  700,  most  probably  the 
latter,  and  that  the  feeling  of  unrest  in  the  Department  of  Panama 
was  great. 

The  Senate  rose  at  11  a.  m.,  and  did  not  return  in  the  afternoon  to 
receive  the  President's  message  closing  Congress. 

The  Chamber  of  Representatives  remained  sitting  until  half  past  2 
o'clock  p.  m.,  when  Congress  was  declared  officially  closed  by  the 
Vice  President. 

Yesterday  the  Government  issued  a  manifesto  to  the  nation,  which 
has  been  published  and  posted  on  the  streets  this  morning.  It 
severely  criticises  the  action  of  Congress,  and  especially  that  of  the 
Senate,  which  latter  body  has  wasted  its  time  in  attacks  on  the 
Executive  instead  of  devoting  itself  to  the  consideration  of  measures 
necessary  to  the  well-being  of  the  country.  As  regards  the  canal,  it 
states  that  the  Government  has  decided  to  resume  negotiations  in  the 
hopes  of  being  able  to  come  to  a  fresh  agreement  which  shall  meet 
with  the  approval  of  the  next  Congress,  and  that  the  Colombian 
charge  d'affaires  at  Washington  has  been  instructed  to  convey  this 
information  to  the  Government  of  the  United  States. 
I  am,  sir  your  obedient  servant 

A.  M.  Beaupre. 


Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

No.  207.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Bogota,  November  ^,  1903. 

Sir:  The  manifesto  issued  by  the  Government  of  Colombia  to  the 
nation  on  the  1st  instant,  the  day  after  the  closing  of  Congress,  is 
interesting  as  a  declaration  of  attitude  and  policy. 

The  Government  makes  reference,  in  the  first  place,  to  the  difficul- 
ties it  had  to  encounter  on  first  taking  charge  of  the  administration ; 
difficulties  with  the  revolution  on  one  hand  and  with  the  administra- 
tion on  the  other.  By  difficulties  with  the  administration  was  evi- 
dently meant,  though  not  actually  stated,  the  equivocal  position  in 
which  the  Government  found  itself  after  the  coup  d'etat  of  the  31st 
of  July.  1900.     Moreover,  the  revolutionary  party  was  in  a  strong 


472  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA   CANAL. 

position,  as  it  could  count  on  many  elements  and  on  the  material 
help  of  friends  outside  the  country. 

With  the  termination  of  the  revolution,  the  difficulties  to  be  faced 
by  the  Government  were  by  no  means  at  an  end.  The  country  was 
suffering  from  stagnation  in  its  industries,  paralyzation  of  its  com- 
merce, the  innumerable  difficulties  created  by  a  depreciated  currency, 
penury  of  the  treasury,  and  a  general  demoralization. 

In  the  midst  of  all  these  difficulties  most  governors  would  have 
been  sorely  tempted  to  dictatorially  take  matters  into  their  own 
hands,  and.  providing  themselves  with  the  necessary  resources, 
assume  the  personal  powers  required  for  putting  an  end  to  the 
anarchy  reigning.  The  vice  president  has  chosen  rather  to  abide 
by  the  provisions  laid  down  by  the  constitution.  He  had,  therefore, 
issued  the  writs  for  elections  for  Congress  and  declared  public  order 
restored. 

In  calling  this  extraordinary  Congress  he  had  hoped  for  the  loyal 
cooperation  of  the  legislature  in  aiding  the  Executive  to  restore  the 
state  of  affairs  of  the  Republic  to  a  normal  condition.  The  legisla- 
tive body  had  now  terminated  its  labors  and  it  will  be  for  the  coun- 
try  to  judge  impartially  both  its  work  and  that  of  the  Executive. 
No  one  is  ignorant  of  the  causes  which  have  rendered  this  session 
of  Congress  only  partially  fruitful.  The  disorder  reigning  between 
the  two  chambers  has  impeded  the  carrying  out  of  much  necessary 
work.  The  Executive,  while  loyally  aided  by  the  majority  in  the 
Chamber  of  Representatives,  found  its  work  thwarted  by  the  hos- 
tility of  the  majority  of  the  Senators. 

The  question  of  almost  unique  importance,  which  decided  the 
calling  of  a  special  Congress,  was  that  of  the  construction  of  an 
interoceanic  canal,  to  wit,  the  Hay-Herran  treaty.  The  Senate,  after 
debates  in  which  too  much  prominence  was  given  to  its  feeling  of 
hostility  toward  the  Chief  of  the  Government,  rejected  that  treaty. 
A  committee  was  then  appointed  to  consider  on  what  bases  the  aspi- 
rations of  the  Colombian  people  for  the  construction  of  an  inter- 
oceanic waterway  could  best  be  satisfied.  As  the  deliberations  of 
the  committee  were  productive  of  no  result,  a  project  of  law  was 
presented  to  the  Senate  by  its  committee,  ratifying  the  rejection  of 
the  treaty  and  granting  authorization  to  the  Executive  for  the  open- 
ing of  this  waterway.  This  project  was  approved  on  the  first  read- 
ing, and  was  then  referred  to  a  new  committee.  The  committee 
reported  against  this  project  of  law,  and  suggested  the  suspension 
of  its  consideration  and  raised  the  question  as  to  the  validity  of  the 
extension  of  time  granted  to  the  New  Panama  Canal  Company  in 
1900.  The  Senate  resolved  to  adopt  part  of  the  suggestions  of  the 
committee,  and  indefinitely  suspended  consideration  of  the  projected 
law  of  authorization.  Congress  has,  therefore,  amply  discussed  and 
definitely  decided  upon  the  question  which  formed  the  principal 
motive  of  its  convocation,  that  of  the  treaty  respecting  the  construc- 
tion of  an  interoceanic  canal. 

The  opening  of  a  canal  is,  however,  a  matter  of  vital  interest  to 
the  Republic,  and  especially  to  the  Department  of  Panama.  The 
Colombian  charge  d'affaires  at  Washington  has,  therefore,  been  in- 
structed to  inform  the  United  States  Government  that  new  negotia- 
tions would  be  set  on  foot  on  bases  which  it  was  believed  would  be 
acceptable  to  the  next  Congress.    In  that  case,  if  the  North  American 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL.  473 

Government  persists  in  its  proposal  to  open  the  canal,  which  it  is  to 
be  presumed  it  does,  as  neither  by  word  nor  by  act  has  anything  to 
the  contrary  been  done,  it  is  to  be  hoped  that  the  great  work  will 
finally  be  carried  out  through  Colombian  territory. 

The  Vice  President  then  refers  to  the  character  of  the  Congress 
which  was  convoked.  The  sessions  were  extraordinary,  not  ordinary 
sessions.  He  was,  therefore,  constitutionally  in  his  right  in  limiting 
ihe  Congress  to  the  consideration  of  certain  matters  of  vital  im- 
portance. He  showed,  however,  a  generous  latitude  in  this  matter, 
giving  to  their  consideration  even  such  questions  as  those  concerning 
the  legislative  decrees  issued  by  the  Government  during  the  war — 
questions  which,  strictly  speaking,  belong  to  the  domain  of  an  ordi- 
nary Congress.  The  Senate,  however,  chose  to  take  an  'unconstitu- 
tional attitude,  and  assume  the  character  of  a  body  called  together  in 
ordinary  session,  and  treated  the  questions  submitted  not  from  the 
point  of  view  of  the  national  welfare,  but  to  make  political  capital  of 
its  attitude  toward  the  Chief  Executive.  Fortunately  the  patriotic 
spirit  shown  by  the  majority  of  the  Chamber  of  Representatives,  in 
conjunction  with  the  minority  of  the  Senate,  helped  to  some  extent 
to  counteract  the  evil  influence  which  the  systematic  opposition  of 
one  part  of  the  legislative  body  was  trying  to  exert. 

The  Vice  President  then  goes  on  to  deal  with  the  constitutional 
powers  of  the  Executive  in  its  relations  to  the  legislative  body.  Since 
(he  constitution  of  1863  it  has  been  decided  that  the  ordinary  Con- 
gress has  one  hundred  and  twenty  days  alloted  for  its  sessions;  but  an 
extraordinary  Congress  is  called  for  the  consideration  of  certain 
special  matters,  and  the  duration  of  its  session  is  at  the  discretion  of 
the  Executive.  To  support  this  statement,  various  precedents  are 
quoted. 

The  honorable  Chamber  of  Representatives,  in  its  session  of  Octo- 
ber 2,  resolved  that  twenty  days  more  would  suffice  for  it  to  finish  the 
work  entrusted  to  its  consideration.  The  Executive,  so  as  not  to  feel 
that  it  was  restricting  the  time  of  the  legislature,  added  eleven  days 
to  the  specified  twenty.  If  the  labor  of  the  present  legislative  body  be 
carefully  compared  with  that  of  its  predecessors  it  will  be  clear  that 
the  one  hundred  and  thirty-four  days  which  the  legislature  has  had 
for  its  deliberations  was  not  merely  time  strictly  necessaiy,  but  more 
than  ample  to  dispose  of  the  matters  submitted  to  its  consideration. 
Its  work  would  have  been  more  beneficial  if  it  had  not  wasted  a  large 
part  of  this  time  in  fruitless  debates. 

The  Vice  President  expresses  the  hope  that  the  ordinary  Congress, 
which  is  to  unite  in  a  little  over  eight  months,  will  be  able  to  fitl}r  dis- 
pose of  the  questions  which  the  late  Congress  has  left  undone. 

The  hostile  attitude  of  some  members  of  Congress  has  raised  a  cer- 
tain  spirit  of  unrest  and  agitation.  Nevertheless,  peace  and  the  sta- 
bility of  constitutional  rule  has  been  maintained.  There  is,  therefore, 
reason  to  hope  that  the  forthcoming  elections  will  not  be  the  cause 
of  agitation,  and  that  their  result  may  be  the  geunine  expression  of 
the  will  of  the  people,  the  carrying  out  of  which  is  assured  by  the 
laws,  and  will  be  respected  by  the  Government. 

The  manifesto  is  signed  by  the  Vice  President  and  all  the  members 
of  his  cabinet. 

I  am.  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

A.  M.  Beaupre. 


474  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

[Telegram.] 

Bogota,  November  4,  1903. 
(Received  November  6,  1903,  5  p.  m.) 
Fourth,  5  p.  in.  Confidential.  I  have  been  shown  telegram  from 
reliable  source  in  Panama  to  the  effect  that  Isthmus  is  preparing  for 
secession  and  that  proclamation  of  independence  may  be  expected 
soon.  The  particulars  carefully  guarded.  Reliable  information  hard 
to  obtain.  This  Government  is  evidently  alarmed  and  troops  are 
being  sent  to  Isthmus.  Repeat  telegrams  of  importance  from  United 
States  consul  general.     His  telegrams  to  me  may  be  interfered  with. 

Beaupre. 


Mr.  Beaupi^e  to  Mr.  Ho;/. 

[Telegram.] 

United  States  Legation, 

Bogota,  November  6, 1903. 
(Received  November  8,  11.05  p.  m.) 
November  6,  6  p.  m.     Knowing  that  the  revolution  has  already 

commenced  in  Panama,  — says  that  if  the  Government  of 

the  United  States  will  land  troops  to  preserve  Colombian  sovereignty 
and  the  transit,  if  requested  by  the  Colombian  charge  d'affaires,  this 
Government  will  declare  martial  law,  and  by  virtue  of  vested  consti- 
tutional authority,  when  public  order  Is  disturbed,  will  approve  by 
decree  the  ratification  of  the  canal  treaty  as  signed;  or,  if  the  Gov- 
ernment of  the  United  States  prefers,  will  call  extra  session  of  Con- 
gress with  new  and  friendly  members  next  May  to  approve  the  treaty. 
General  Reyes  has  the  perfect  confidence  of  vice  president,  he  says, 
and  if  it  becomes  necessary  will  go  to  the  Isthmus  or  send  representa- 
tives there  to  adjust  matters  along  above  lines  to  the  satisfaction  of 
the  people  there.  If  he  goes,  he  would  like  to  act  in  harmony  with 
commander  of  United  States  forces.  This  is  the  personal  opinion  of 
Reyes,  and  he  will  advise  this  Government  to  act  accordingly.  There 
is  a  great  reaction  of  public  opinion  in  favor  of  the  treaty,  and  it  is 
considered  certain  that  the  treaty  was  not  legally  rejected  by  Con- 
gress. To-morrow  martial  law  will  be  declared;  1,000  troops  will  be 
sent  from  the  Pacific  side;  about  the  same  number  from  the  Atlantic, 
side.     Please  answer  by  telegraph. 

Beaupre. 


Mr.  Hay  to  Mr.  Beaupre. 

[Telegram.  ] 

Department  <>k  State, 
Washington,  November  0.  1903. 
The  people  of  Panama  Inning,  by  an  apparently  unanimous  move- 
ment, dissolved  their  political  connection  with  the  Republic  of  Co- 
lombia and  resumed  their  independence,  and  having  adopted  a  gov- 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY    OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  475 

ernment  of  their  own,  republican  in  form,  with  which  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  United  States  of  America  has  entered  into  relations,  the 
President  of  the  United  States,  in  accordance  with  the  ties  of  friend- 
ship which  have  so  long  and  so  happily  existed  between  the  respec- 
tive nations,  most  earnestly  commends  to  the  Governments  of  Colom- 
bia and  of  Panama  the  peaceable  and  equitable  settlement  of  all 
questions  at  issue  between  them.  He  holds  that  he  is  bound,  not 
merely  by  treaty  obligations,  but  by  the  interests  of  civilization,  to 
see  that  the  peaceable  traffic  of  the  world  across  the  Isthmus  of 
Panama  shall  not  longer  be  disturbed  by  a  constant  succession  of 
unnecessary  and  wasteful  civil  wars. 

Hay. 


Mr.  Beaupre  td  Mr.  Hay. 

[Telegram.] 

United  States  Legation, 
Bogota,  November  7,  1903. 
(Received  7.30  p.  m.,  November  10.) 
November  7,  2  p.  m.  General  Reyes  leaves  next  Monday  for  Pana- 
ma invested  with  full  powers.  He  has  telegraphed  chiefs  of  the 
insurrection  that  his  mission  is  to  the  interests  of  Isthmus.  He 
wishes  answer  from  you  before  leaving  to  the  inquiry  in  my  tele- 
gram of  yesterday  and  wishes  to  know  if  the  American  commander 
will  be  ordered  to  cooperate  with  him  and  with  new  Panama  Gov- 
ernment to  arrange  peace  and  approval  of  the  canal  treaty,  which 
will  be  accepted  on  condition  that  the  integrity  of  Colombia  be  pre- 
served. He  has  telegraphed  President  of  Mexico  to  ask  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  United  States  and  all  the  countries  represented  at  the 
Pan  American  conference  to  aid  Colombia  to  preserve  her  integrity. 
The  question  of  the  approval  of  the  treaty  mentioned  in  my  tele- 
gram of  }*esterday  will  be  arranged  in  Panama.  He  asks  that  before 
taking  definite  action  you  will  await  his  arrival  there,  and  that  the 
Government  of  the  United  States  in  the  meantime  preserve  the  neu- 
trality and  transit  of  the  Isthmus  and  do  not  recognize  the  new 
Government.  Great  excitement  here.  Martial  law  has  been  declared 
in  the  Cauca  and  Panama.    Answer. 

Beaupre. 


Mr.  Beawpre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

I  Telegram.] 

United  States  Legation. 

Bogota,  November  7.  1903. 
(Received  November  10,  7.55  p.  m.) 
As  the  Government  of  the  United  States  has  war  vessels  at  Panama 
and  Colon,  minister  for  foreign  affairs  has  requested  me  to  ask  will 
you  allow  Colombian  Government  to  land  troops  at  those  ports — to 
fight  there  and  on  the  line  of  railway?  Also  if  the  Government  of 
the  United  States  will  take  action  to  maintain  Colombian  right  and 


476  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA   CANAL. 

sovereignty  on  the  Isthmus  in  accordance  with  article  35.  the  treaty 
of  1846,  in  case  the  Colombian  Government  is  entirely  unable  to  sup- 
press the  secession  movement  there? 


Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

[Telegram.] 

Bogota,  November  9, 1903. 
(Received  November  11,  12.30  a.  m.) 

November  9.  9  a.  m.  I  am  desired  to  inform  you  by  General  Reyes 
that  Gen.  Bedronel  Ospina  and  Lucas  Cabellero,  prominent  party 
leaders,  accompany  him  on  his  mission. 

Aery  great  excitement  here.  Large  crowds  paraded  streets  yester- 
day, crying  "  Down  with  Marroquin."  Mass  meeting  denounced  him ; 
called  for  a  change  of  government.  Hundreds  gathered  at  the  palace, 
and  their  orator,  a  prominent  national  general,  addressed  the  Presi- 
dent, calling  for  his  resignation.  Troops  dispersed  gathering, 
wounding  several.  Martial  law  is  declared  here,  and  the  city  is  being 
guarded  by  soldiers.  Legation  of  the  United  States  under  strong 
guard,  but  apparently  no  indications  of  hostile  demonstration. 

The  residence  of  Lorenzo  Marroquin  attacked  with  stones. 

Referring  to  the  question  presented  by  minister  for  foreign  affairs 
in  my  telegram  of  7th.  I  have  preserved  silence,  but  bear  in  mind  page 
578,  Foreign  Relations,  part  3,  1866,  and  instructions  134  to  minister 
to  the  United  States  of  Colombia,  1865. 

Beaupre. 


[Note.- — For   convenience   the   above-mentioned   instruction.   No.   134.   is  repro- 
duced, as  follows:] 

\m.  134.  Department  of  State. 

Washington,  November  9,  1S65. 
To  Allan  A.  Burton,  Esq..  etc., 

Bogota. 

Sir:  The  question  which  has  recently  arisen  under  the  thirty-fifth  article  of 
the  treaty  with  New  Granada,  as  to  the  obligation  of  this  Government  to  com- 
ply with  a  requisition  of  the  President  of  the  United  states  of  Colombia  for  a 
force  to  protect  the  Isthmus  of  Panama  from  invasion  by  a  body  of  insurgents 
of  that  country  has  been  submitted  to  the  consideration  of  the  Attorney  Gen- 
eral.  His  opinion  is  that  neither  the  text  nor  the  spirit  of  the  stipulation  in 
that  article  by  which  the  United  States  engages  to  preserve  the  neutrality  of 
the  Isthmus  of  Panama,  imposes  an  obligation  on  this  Government  to  comply 
with  a  requisition  like  that  referred  to.  The  purpose  of  the  stipulation  was  to 
guarantee  the  [sthmus  against  seizure  or  invasion  by  a  foreign  power  only. 
It  could  not  have  been  contemplated  that  we  were  to  become  a  party  to  any 
civil  war  in  that  country  by  defending  the  Isthmus  against  another  party.  As 
it  may  be  presumed,  however,  that  our  object  in  entering  into  such  a  stipulation 
was  to  secure  the  freedom  of  transit  across  the  Isthmus,  if  that  freedom  should 
be  endangered  or  obstructed,  the  employment  of  force  on  our  part  to  prevent 
tins  would  be  a  question  of  grave  expediency  to  lie  determined  by  circumstances. 
The  department  is  aot  aware  that  there  is  yet  occasion  for  a  decision  upon  this 
point. 

Your  dispatches  to  No. .  inclusive,  have  been  received. 

I  am.  sir.  etc.. 

William  H.  Seward. 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF   THE    PANAMA   CANAL.  477 

Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hag. 

[Telegram.] 

Legation  or  the  United  States, 
Bogota,  November  11,  1903.     (Received  November  14.) 

The  situation  here  under  control,  but  how  long  this  will  continue  is 
uncertain,  as  there  is  intense  feeling  against  the  Government.  There 
is  also  a  bitter  feeling  against  the  United  States  because  of  the  belief 
that  the  Government  of  the  United  States  has  encouraged  the  seces- 
sion movement,  and  of  the  statement  of  telegram  received  by  the  Gov- 
ernment to  the  effect  that  the  United  States  forces  interfered  with 
Colombian  troops  under  General  Tobar  at  Colon,  necessitating  their 
surrender. 

An  army  ten  thousand  strong  being  raised  here,  and  one  of  five 
thousand  in  the  Cauca  to  operate  against  Panama,  commanded  by 
General  Reyes,  provided  the  United  States  will  allow  Colombia  to 
land  troops. 

A  meeting  was  held  under  the  leadership  of  Senator  Caro,  and  a 
resolution  was  passed  requesting  the  Government  to  call  a  convention 
for  the  purpose  of  amending  the  constitution  in  order  to  render  pos- 
sible immediate  ratification  of  the  treaty.  This  is  opposed  by  the 
Government  and  General  Reyes  as  being  inopportune. 

Beaupre. 


Mr.  Hay  to  Mr.  Beaupre. 

[Telegram.] 

Department  of  State, 
Washington,  November  11,  1903.  (Sent  12.12  p.  in.) 
Earnestly  desiring  an  amicable  solution  of  matters  at  issue  between 
Colombia  and  Panama,  we  have  instructed  our  consul  general  at 
Panama  to  use  good  offices  to  secure  for  General  Reyes  a  courteous 
reception  and  considerate  hearing.  It  is  not  thought  desirable  to  per- 
mit landing  of  Colombina  troops  on  Isthmus,  as  such  a  course  would 
precipitate  civil  war  and  disturb  for  an  indefinite  period  the  free 
transit  which  we  are  pledged  to  protect.  I  telegraphed  you  on  No- 
vember 6  that  we  had  entered  into  relations  with  the  provisional 
government. 

Hay. 


Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hog. 

[Telegram.] 

Legation  of  the  United  States, 
Bogota,  November  12,  1903.  (Received  November  14.) 
I  was  invited  to  the  palace  last  night  to  confer  with  the  President 
and  his  cabinet,  and  communicated  the  substance  of  your  telegram  of 
the  6th  in  the  form  of  a  note  to  the  minister  of  foreign  affairs.  I 
was  asked  if  I  would  officially  construe  the  last  clause  to  mean  the 
United  States  would  not  permit  the  landing  of  Colombian  troops.  I 
replied  my  opinion  is  that  the  language  used  needs  no  interpretation; 


478  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

that  I  had  fulfilled  my  official  duty  in  delivering  the  note  and  had  no 
explanation  to  make.  The  President  then  enjoined  secrecy  upon  those 
present  until  direct  answer  has  been  received  to  the  two  questions  of 
the  minister  for  foreign  affairs  contained  in  my  telegram  of  the  7th. 
There  is  consternation  in  Government  circles,  and  I  fear  serious 
trouble  when  the  public  is  informed  of  the  real  situation.  I  believe 
there  is  much  danger,  not  only  to  the  Government,  but  also  to  Ameri- 
cans in  the  interior,  especially  .in  Bogota. 

Beaupre. 

Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

[Telegram.] 

United  States  Legation, 
Bogota,  November  1 4, 1903.     (Received  November  17.) 
In  an  official  note,  dated  14th,  minister  for  foreign  affairs  writes 
me  as  follows : 

The  immediate  recognition  of  the  so-called  Government  of  Panama  by  the 
Government  of  the  United  States  entering  into  relations  with  it  is  a  circum- 
stance aggravated  by  the  fact  that  such  recognition  is  a  violation  of  the  treaty 
of  1S46,  which  compels  the  Government  of  Colombia  to  protest,  as  it  does  in 
most  solemn  and  emphatic  manner,  and  to  consider  that  the  friendship  of  this 
Government  with  the  Government  of  the  United  States  has  reached  such  a 
grave  point  that  it  is  not  possible  to  continue  diplomatic  relations  unless  the 
Government  of  the  United  Statee  that  it  is  not  its  intention  to  interfere 
with  Colombia  in  obtaining  submission  of  the  Isthmus  nor  to  recognize  the 
rebels  as  belligerents.  I  hope  you  will  submit  these  points  to  your  Government 
immediately,  for  the  army  is  already  marching  to  the  Isthmus  of  Panama. 

The  note  is  very  long,  to  the  effect  that  this  recognition  is  contrary 
to  all  precedents  and  in  violation  of  the  treaty  of  1846,  offering  to 
submit  the  latter  point  to  The  Hague,  with  the  understanding  that 
in  the  meantime  there  shall  be  no  interference  with  the  military 
operations  necessary  to  reestablish  integrity  of  Colombia. 

National  council — especially  elected  to  advise  the  Executive  in  the 
present  emergencj^ — has  decided,  by  10  votes  to  1,  to  hand  me  my 
passport.  The  Government  understands  that  such  action  would  be 
tantamount  to  a  declaration  of  war,  and  has  advised  me  such  a  step 
will  not  be  taken.  Send  instructions  as  a  guide  in  case  of  severance 
of  diplomatic  relations. 

Beaupre. 


Mr.  Beaupre  to  Mr.  Hay. 

[Telegram.] 

United  States  Legation, 
Bogota,  November  17, 1903.    (Received  November  19.) 
Minister  for  foreign  affairs  sends  another  note,  requesting  that  I 
transmit  by  cable  an  abstract,  as  follows: 

As  the  Government  of  the  United  States  does  not  definitely  state 
that  it  will  oppose  landing  of  Colombian  troops,  but  will  secure  hear- 
ing for  General  Reyes,  it  may  be  supposed  its  purpose  is  to  bring 
about  peace  in  Colombia  and  Panama,  to  the  end  that  the  latter  shall 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  479 

renounce  independence  and  thus  avoid  armed  action  otherwise  in- 
evitable. If  this  is  the  intention  of  the  United  States,  Colombia  will 
accept,  provided  territorial  rights  of  Colombia  on  the  Isthmus  are  not 
prejudiced.  Maintenance  of  order  falls  to  the  power  holding  sov- 
ereignty, which  the  United  States  has  heretofore  recognized.  Ac- 
cordingly, it  is  an  inadmissible  theory  that  the  United  States  should 
now  permit  or  aid  dismemberment  of  Colombia  merely  to  prevent 
temporary  disturbance  of  the  transit,  Colombia  has  for  fifty  years 
maintained  free  transit,  but  she  can  not  be  asked  to  carry  this  to  the 
extent  of  agreeing  to  the  loss  of  precious  territory  simply  from  fear 
some  interruption  of  transit  may  occur.  Sovereignty  of  nations 
may  not  be  destroyed  for  the  purpose  of  avoiding  transitory  preju- 
dice to  commerce — an  argument  as  to  the  effect  of  the  existing  treaty, 
and  that  civilization  will  suffer  more  by  the  violation  of  a  public 
treaty  than  a  temporary  interruption  of  traffic.  The  most  efficient 
means  the  United  States  could  employ  to  prevent  interruption  of 
transit  would  be  to  notify  rebels  to  abstain  from  obstructing  Colom- 
bian Government  in  reestablishing  order  and  constitutional  rule. 
This  is  demanded  of  the  United  States  by  treaty.  If  the  United 
States  troops  have  been  used  to  disarm  Colombian  army  it  is  in 
subversion  of  national  sovereignty  and  contrary  to  the  treaty. 

Beaupre. 

Mr.  Hay  to  Mr.  Beaupre. 

[Telegram.] 

Department  of  State, 
Washington,  November  18.  1903. 
You  will  once  more  inform  Colombian  Government  that  we  have 
recognized  the  Republic  of  Panama  ;  that  our  action  has  been  taken  in 
the  interest  of  peace  and  order  on  the  Isthmus;  that  we  earnestly 
desire  an  amicable  settlement  of  questions  at  issue  between  Colombia 
and  Panama,  and  would  gladly  render  what  services  are  in  our 
power  to  that  end. 

I  repeat  that  you  and  the  secretary  of  legation  are  authorized  to 
take  your  leave  of  absence  whenever  you  think  best,  requesting  one 
of  your  colleagues  to  take  charge  of  your  legation,  if  both  of  you 
come  away. 

Hay. 


No.  14. 

PRESIDENT'S  MESSAGE  GIVING  CORRESPONDENCE  SHOWING 
RELATIONS  BETWEEN  THE  UNITED  STATES,  COLOMBIA,  AND 
PANAMA. 

[Senate  Document   No.  9j5,   Fifty-eighth   Congress,  second  session.] 

RELATIONS    OP    THE    UNITED    STATES    WITH    COLOMBIA    AND    THE 
REPUBLIC  OF  PANAMA. 

MESSAGE  FROM  THE  PRESIDENT  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES,  TRANSMITTING  A 
REPORT  FROM  THE  SECRETARY  OF  STATE  COVERING  COPIES  OF  ADDITIONAL 
PAPERS  BEARING  UPON  THE  RELATIONS  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES  WITH 
COLOMBIA  AND  THE *EEPTJBLIC  OF  PANAMA. 

[January  18,  1904  :   Read;  ordered  to  lie  on  the  table  and  to  be  printed.] 

To  the  Senate  and  House  of  Refrcsentatives: 

I  transmit  herewith  for  the  information  of  the  Congress  a  report 
from  the  Secretary  of  State  covering  copies  of  additional  papers  bear- 
ing upon  the  relations  of  the  United  States  with  Colombia  and  the 
Republic  of  Panama. 

Theodore  Roosevelt. 

White  House,  January  IS.  !00.'f. 


The  President: 

In  continuation  of  the  papers  previously  submitted,  the  under- 
signed  Secretary  of  State  has  the  honor  to  lay  before  the  President 
additional  correspondence  touching  the  relations  of  the  United  States 
with  Colombia  and  Panama. 

Respectfully  submitted. 


John  Hay. 


Department  of  State, 

Washington,  January  16,  1904. 


List  of  pupa*. 

General  Keyes  to  Mr.  Hay.  December  23,  1903. 
Mr.  Hay  to  Genera]  Reyes,  January  5,  1004. 
General  Reyes  to  Mr.  Hay,  January  fi.  1004. 
Mr.  Hay  to  General  Reyes,  January  9,  1904. 
General  Keyes  to  Mr.  Hay.  January  11,  1904. 
Mr.  Hay  to  Genera]  Reyes,  January  13,  1004. 
Mr.  Buchanan  to  Mr.  Hay,  No.  4.  December  25,  1003. 
Mr.  Buchanan  to  Mr.  Hay,  No.  (5.  December  27,  1903. 
Mr.  Buchanan  to  Mr.  Hay.  No.  7.  December  28,  1003. 

Mr.  Buchanan   to  Mr.  Hay.  No.  0.   December  28.  1903.      (Translations  from 
Gaceta  Official  of  Panama,  December  12.  14.  ami  16,  1003.) 
Mr.  liunau-Varilla   to  Mr.  Hay.  .January  <>.  1004. 

480 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OP   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  481 

[Translation.] 

General  Reyes  to  Mr.  Hay. 

Legation  of  Colombia,  on  Special  Mission, 

Washington,  December  23,  1903. 
Most  Excellent  Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  append  to  this  note  a 
statement  of  grievances  that  Colombia  wishes  to  submit  to  the  con- 
sideration of  your  excellency.  Its  presentation  was  deferred  by 
reason  of  the  condition  of  your  excellency's  health,  and  I  beg  that 
you  will  put  off  the  consideration  of  this  note  until  your  excellency 
may  be  able  to  give  your  personal  attention  to  its  examination. 

If,  after  so  doing,  your  excellency  should  wish  to  have  an  interview 
with  me,  I  shall  have  the  honor  of  calling  on  you  at  such  place  and 
time  as  your  excellency  ma}7  be  pleased  to  designate. 

With  sentiments  of  the  highest  consideration  and  regard,  I  have 
the  honor  to  subscribe  myself  your  excellency's  very  obedient  and 
faithful  servant, 

Rafael  Reyes. 
Hon.  John  Hay, 

Secretary  of  State. 


General  Reyes  to  Mr.  Hay. 

Legation  of  Colombia,  on  Special  Mission, 

Washington,  December  23,  1903. 

Most  Excellent  Sir:  The  Government  and  people  of  Colombia 
consider  themselves  aggrieved  by  that  of  the  United  States  in  that 
they  are  convinced  that  the  course  followed  by  its  administration,  in 
relation  to  the  events  that  have  developed  and  recently  been  accom- 
plished at  Panama,  have  worked  deep  injury  to  their  interests. 

If  the  matter  were  one  of  little  importance,  even  though  right  were 
wholly  on  its  side,  my  Government  would  not  hesitate  in  yielding 
some  of  its  advantages  out  of  regard  for  the  friendly  relations  which 
have  happily  existed  without  interruption  between  the  two  countries. 
But  as  the  facts  that  have  taken  place  affect  not  only  valuable  and 
valued  interests,  but  also  the  independence  and  sovereignty  of  Colom- 
bia, my  Government  deems  it  its  duty  to  remind  that  of  the  United 
States  of  the  stipulation  contained  in  section  5  of  article  35  of  the 
treaty  of  1846,  in  force  between  the  two  countries,  which  reads  word 
for  word  as  follows: 

If,  unfortunately,  any  of  the  articles  contained  in  this  treaty  should  be  vio- 
lated or  infringed  in  any  way  whatever,  it  is  expressly  stipulated  that  neither 
of  the  two  contracting  parties  shall  ordain  or  authorize  any  acts  of  reprisal,  nor 
shall  declare  war  against  the  other  in  complaints  of  injuries  or  damages,  until 
the  said  party  considering  itself  offended  shall  have  laid  before  the  other  a 
statement  of  such  injuries  or  damages,  verified  by  competent  proofs,  demanding 
justice  and  satisfaction,  and  the  same  shall  have  been  denied,  in  violation  of 
the  laws  and  of  international  right. 

On  formulating  the  statement  of  "  injuries  and  damages,"  referred 
to  in  the  quoted  abstract,  there  is  nothing  as  natural  or  just  as  to 
recall  to  mind  that  in  the  treaty  concluded  on  the  22d  of  January  of 

42112— S.  Doc.  474,  63-2 31 


482  DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

this  year  between  your  excellency  and  the  charge  d'affaires  of  Colom- 
bia, Senor  Doctor  Tomas  Herrera,  there  appears  the  following  stipu- 
lation : 

The  convention  when  signed  by  the  contracting  parties  shall  be  ratified  in  con- 
formity with  the  laws  of  the  respective  countries,  etc. 

This  condition,  which  rests  at  once  on  a  correct  conception  of  the 
doctrine  accepted  in  such  matters  by  nearly  all  the  constitutional 
countries  in  the  world,  could  not  be  foregone  by  Mr.  Herran,  since 
under  our  constitution  and  laws  it  is  for  the  Congress  to  approve  or 
disapprove  the  treaties  signed  by  the  Government,  so  that  the  said 
treaties  are  not  valid  unless  the  requirement  has  been  observed,  and 
as  it  likewise  happens  that  under  the  law  of  nations  covenants  en- 
tered into  with  any  authority  that  may  not  be  competent  are  null,  it 
is  evident  that  no  Colombian  representative,  in  the  absence  of  a  pre- 
existing law  conferring  such  authority  could  have  signed  the  said 
convention  without  the  above-quoted  reservation.  Furthermore,  this 
formality  was  at  the  outset  admitted  by  the  American  Government 
in  the  course  of  the  negotiations  that  preceded  the  Hay-Herran  con- 
vention, as  shown  in  articles  25,  26,  and  28  of  the  "  Draft  of  conven- 
tion "  submitted  by  the  American  Administration  and  dated  Novem- 
ber 28,  1902.  Article  25  says,  textually,  that  the  convention  will  be 
exchanged  "  after  approval  by  the  legislative  bodies  of  both  coun- 
tries." 

The  Hay-Herran  convention  did  not  take  in  Washington  a  course 
different  from  that  it  took  at  Bogota.  The  parliamentary  debate 
that  took  place  in  the  Senate  was  so  full  and  earnest  that  it  was  not 
approved  until  the  following  extraordinary  sessions.  And  if  it  had 
been  rejected,  the  disapproval  would  have  involved  no  grievance  for 
Colombia,  for  if  the  mere  entering  upon  negotiations  for  a  conven- 
tion implied  the  obligatory  approval  of  the  legislative  body  it  would 
be  superfluous  to  submit  it  to  its  decision.  Among  the  precedents  of 
international  usage  that  could  be  mentioned  in  this  respect  there  may 
be  cited  the  case  that  occurred  between  the  same  United  States  of 
America  and  Her  Britannic  Majesty,  when,  after  the  signing  of  the 
treaty  intended  to  abrogate  the  convention  known  as  the  Clayton- 
Bulwer  treaty,  England,  as  I  understand  -it,  declined  to  accept  the 
amendment  introduced  by  the  Senate,  and  her  refusal  delayed  for 
some  time  the  approval  and  ratification  of  the  treaty. 
/It  follows  that  the  Congress  of  Colombia,  which  is  vested,  accord- 
ing to  our  laws,  with  the  faculty  or  power  to  approve  or  disapprove 
the  treaties  concluded  by  the  Government,  exercised  a  perfect  right 
when  it  disapproved  the  Hay-Herran  convention.  This  course  did 
not  disqualify  the  Government  for  the  conclusion  of  another  treaty 
with  the  Government  of  your  excellency;  and  it  indeed  resolved  to 
make  a  proposition  to  that  effect,  and  Mr.  Herran,  whom  our  min- 
ister for  foreign  affairs  intrusted  with  that  duty  by  cable,  had  the 
honor  of  bringing  this  purpose  to  your  excellency's  knowledge. 
Neither  did  that  course  imply  any  slight  toward  the  Government  of 
the  United  States,  and,  on  the  contraiy,  the  Senate,  observant  of  the 
existing  friendly  relations,  relied  on  the  sentiments  of  American  fra- 
ternity, by  which  it  is  animated,  for  the  introduction  in  the  new 
agreement  that  was  to  be  made  of  stipulations  more  consonant  with 
the  notion  of  sovereignty  entertained  by  the  people  of  Colombia. 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  48$ 

It  is  proper  to  observe  that  under  our  constitution  the  Congress  is 
the  principal  guardian,  defender,  and  interpreter  of  our  laws.  And 
it  can  not  be  denied  by  anyone,  I  take  it,  that  the  Hay-Herran  con- 
vention provides  for  the  execution  of  public  works  on  a  vast  scale  and 
for  the  occupancy  in  perpetuity  of  a  portion  of  the  territory  of 
Colombia,  the  occupant  being  not  a  juridical  person  whose  acts  were 
to  be  governed  by  the  civil  law  and  the  Colombian  code,  but  rather  a 
sovereign  political  entity,  all  of  which  would  have  given  occasion  for 
frequent  conflicts,  since  there  would  have  been  a  coexistence  in 
Panama  of  two  public  powers,  the  one  national,  the  other  foreign. 

Hence  the  earnest  efforts  evinced  by  the  Senate  in  ascertaining 
whether  the  American  Government  would  agree  to  accept  certain 
amendments  tending  especially  to  avoid  as  far  as  practicable  any 
restriction  in  the  treaty  of  the  jurisdiction  of  the  nation  within  its 
own  territory.  There  is  abundant  evidence  of  the  efforts  of  the 
Senate  in  that  direction,  and  I  firmly  believe  that  it  would  have 
approved  the  convention  with  amendments  that  would  probably  have 
been  acceptable  to  the  United  States  had  not  the  American  minister 
at  Bogota  repeatedly  declared  in  the  most  positive  manner  that  his 
Government  would  reject  any  amendment  that  might  be  offered. 

In  a  note  dated  April  24  last  he  made  the  following  statement  to 
the  minister  of  foreign  relations : 

With  reference  to  the  interview  I  had  with  your  excellency  at  which  were  dis- 
cussed the  negotiations  for  the  annulment  of  the  present  concessions  of  the 
Panama  Canal  and  railroad  companies  and  other  matters  I  have  the  honor  to 
inform  your  excellency  that  I  have  received  instructions  from  my  Government 
in  that  respect. 

I  am  directed  to  inform  your  excellency,  if  the  point  should  be  raised,  that 
everything  relative  to  this  matter  is  included  in  the  convention  recently  signed 
between  Colombia  and  the  United  States  on  the  22d  of  January  last  and  that, 
furthermore,  any  modification  would  be  violative  of  the  Spooner  Act,  and  there- 
fore inadmissible. 

The  memorandum  handed  by  the  same  minister  to  the  minister  of 
foreign  relations  on  the  13th  of  June  of  this  year  reads  as  follows : 

I  have  received  instructions  from  my  Government  by  cable  in  the  sense  that 
the  Government  of  Colombia  to  all  appearances  does  not  appreciate  the  gravity  of 
the  situation.  The  Panama  Canal  negotiations  were  initiated  by  Colombia  and 
were  earnestly  solicited  of  my  Government  for  several  years.  The  propositions 
presented  by  Colombia  with  slight  alterations  were  finally  accepted  by  us.  By 
virtue  of  this  agreement  our  Congress  reconsidered  its  previous  decision  and 
decided  in  favor  of  the  Panama  route.  If  Colombia  now  rejects  the  treaty  or 
unduly  delays  its  ratification  the  friendly  relations  between  the  two  countries 
would  be  so  seriously  compromised  that  our  Congress  might  next  winter  take 
steps  that  every  friend  of  Colombia  would  regret  with  sorrow. 

In  his  note  of  the  5th  of  August  of  this  year  he  says  this,  among 
other  things : 

It  seems  to  me  that  the  commission  (referring  to  the  Senate  commission)  has 
not  been  sufficiently  informed  of  the  contents  of  my  notes  of  April  24  and  June 
10  [sic],  1903,  or  that  it  has  not  given  them  the  importance  they  merit,  as  being 
the  final  expression  of  the  opinion  or  intentions  of  my  Government.  They 
clearly  show  that  the  amendment  the  commission  proposes  to  introduce  in  article 
1  is,  by  itself,  equivalent  to  an  absolute  rejection  of  the  treaty.  I  deem  it  my 
duty  to  repeat  the  opinion  I  already  expressed  to  your  excellency  that  my  Gov- 
ernment will  not  consider  or  discuss  such  an  amendment  in  any  way.  There  is 
another  important  amendment  that  the  commission  believes  should  be  introduced 
in  article  3.  consisting  in  the  suppression  of  the  tribunals  therein  dealt  with. 
I  consider  it  my  duty  again  to  state  my  opinion  that  this  will  also  in  no  wise  be 
accepted  by  my  Government. 


484  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

And  further,  in  the  same  note,  he  adds : 

I  avail  myself  of  this  opportunity  respectfully  to  repent  that  which  I  already 
stated  to  your  excellency,  that  if  Colombia  truly  desires  to  maintain  the  friendly 
relations  that  at  present  exist  between  two  countries,  and  at  the  same  time  se- 
cure for  herself  the  extraordinary  advantages  that  are  to  be  produced  for  her  by 
the  construction  of  the  canal  in  her  territory,  in  case  of  its  being  backed  by 
so  intimate  an  alliance  of  national  interests  as  that  which  would  supervene  with 
the  United  States,  the  present  treaty  will  have  to  be  ratified  exacly  in  its  present 
form  without  amendment  whatsoever.  I  say  this  because  I  am  profoundly  con- 
vinced that  my  Government  will  not  in  any  case  accept  amendments. 

The  Congress  being  unable  to  accept  in  its  actual  wording  at  least 
one  of  the  stipulations  contained  in  the  treaty,  because  inhibited  from 
doing  so  by  the  constitution,  no  one  will  wonder  that  under  the  pres- 
sure of  threats  so  serious  and  irritating  and  in  presence  of  a  formal 
notification  from  the  party  which  had  authority  to  serve  it  that  no 
amendment  would  be  accepted,  preference  was  given  to  disapproval. 

The  integrity  of  any  nation  [said  Mr.  William  H.  Seward]  is  lost,  and  its  fate 
becomes  doubtful,  whenever  strange  hands,  and  instruments  unknown  to  the  con- 
stitution, are  employed  to  perform  the  proper  functions  of  the  people,  established 
by  the  organic  law  of  the  State.1 

Before  dismissing  this  point,  it  is  proper  to  observe,  in  accordance 
with  article  4  of  the  Spooner  Act : 

Sec.  4.  That  should  the  President  be  unable  to  obtain  for  the  United  States  a 
satisfactory  title  to  the  property  of  the  New  Panama  Canal  Company  and  the 
control  of  the  necessary  territory  of  the  Republic  of  Colombia  and  the  rights 
mentioned  in  sections  one  and  two  of  this  act,  within  a  reasonable  time  and  upon 
reasonable  terms,  then  the  President,  having  first  obtained  for  the  United  States 
perpetual  control  by  treaty  of  the  necessary  territory  from  Costa  Rica  and  Nic- 
aragua, upon  terms  which  he  may  consider  reasonable,  for  the  construction, 
perpetual  maintenance,  operation,  and  protection  of  a  canal  connecting  the 
Caribbean  Sea  with  the  Pacific  Ocean  by  what  is  commonly  known  as  the 
Nicaragua  route,  shall,  through  the  said  Isthmian  Canal  Commission,  cause  to  be 
excavated  and  constructed  a  ship  canal  and  waterway  from  a  point  on  the  shore 
of  the  Caribbean  Sea,  near  Greytown,  by  way  of  Lake  Nicaragua,  to  a  point 
near  Brito,  on  the  Pacific  Ocean. 

This  act,  on  account  of  its  having  served  as  the  basis  of  the  treaty 
draft  on  the  part  of  the  United  States,  as  stated  in  the  preamble, 
which  adds  that  it  is  accompanied  by  a  copy  of  the  act,  had  for  Co- 
lombia exceptional  importance.  For  it  is  so  imperative  that  it  seems 
to  leave  no  faculty  other  than  that  of  selecting  one  of  the  two  routes, 
Panama  or  Nicaragua,  and  therefore  it  was  to  be  presumed  that  the 
action  of  the  American  Government  could  not  overstep  the  limits 
therein  fixed.  Whence  it  follows  that  the  sole  evil  that  could  befall 
Colombia  if  her  Congress  should  disapprove  the  treaty  was  that  the 
route  eventually  selected  would  be  that  of  Nicaragua.  It  may  be  that 
we  fell  in  error  when  we  entertained  that  belief,  but  it  was  sincere, 
and  we  were  led  into  it  by  the  profound  respect  with  which  the 
American  laws  inspire  us. 

All  governments  being,  as  is  well  known,  bound  to  respect  the 
rights  born  of  the  independence  and  sovereignty  of  nations,  the  pre- 
mature recognition  by  the  United  States  of  the  province  of  Panama, 
rising  in  arms  to  detach  itself  from  the  country  of  which  it  is  a  part, 
while  it  is  a  matter  of  public  knowledge  that  the  mother  country  com- 
mands sufficient  forces  to  subdue  it,  constitutes,  according  to  the  most 

1  See  p.  109,  F.  R.,  1861,  Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Adams. — Translator. 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  485 

ancient  and  modern  authorities  on  international  law,  not  only  a  grave 
offense  to  Colombia,  but  also  a  formal  attack  upon  her  wealth. 

For,  as  the  territory  forms  the  most  important  part  of  the  national 
wealth,  its  dismemberment  impairs  the  revenues  applied  to  the  dis- 
charge of  corporate  obligations  among  which  are  foreign  debts  and 
those  enterprises  entailed  on  the  insurgent  province,  from  which 
Colombia  derives  a  considerable  income. 

If  there  be  an  end  and  eternal  and  immutable  principles  in  right, 
that  right  of  Colombia  has  been  injured  by  the  United  States  by  an 
incredible  transgression  of  the  limits  set  by  equity  and  justice. 

Before  the  coup  de  main  which  proclaimed  the  independence  of  the 
Isthmus  took  place  at  Panama,  there  were  in  this  very  city  agents  of 
the  authors  of  that  coup  in  conference  with  high  personages  clothed 
with  official  character,  as  is  asserted  by  reputable  American  news- 
papers. I  have  received  information  to  the  effect  that  a  bank  in  New 
York  opened  a  considerable  credit  in  their  favor,  with  a  knowledge  of 
the  general  use  for  which  it  was  intended,  even  though  unaware  that 
it  was  to  be  applied  in  part  to  the  bribery  of  a  large  part  of  the  gar- 
rison at  Panama. 

Intercourse  of  any  kind  [said  Mr.  Seward]  with  the  so-called  "commissioners" 
is  liable  to  be  construed  as  a  recognition  of  the  authority  wbich  appointed  them. 
Such  intercourse  would  be  none  the  less  hurtful  to  us  for  being  called  unofficial, 
and  it  might  be  even  more  injurious,  because  we  should  have  no  means  of  know- 
ing what  points  might  be  resolved  by  it.  Moreover,  unofficial  intercourse  is  use- 
less and  meaningless  if  it  is  not  expected  to  ripen  into  official  intercourse  and 
direct  recognition.1 

It  will  be  well  to  say  that  before  the  news  was  divulged  that  a  revo- 
lution was  about  to  break  out  on  the  Isthmus,  American  cruisers 
which  reached  their  destination  precisely  on  the  eve  of  the  movement 
were  plowing  the  waters  of  the  Atlantic  and  Pacific  Oceans.  Cable- 
grams that  are  given  public  circulation  in  an  official  document  show 
that  two  days  before  the  movement  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy  issued 
orders  to  those  cruisers  not  to  permit  the  landing  of  troops  of  the 
Government  of  Colombia  on  Panama's  territory. 

A  military  officer  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States  stopped 
the  railway  from  carrying  to  Panama,  as  it  was  under  obligations  to 
do,  a  battalion  that  had  just  arrived  at  Colon  from  Bogota  at  the  very 
time  when  its  arrival  in  that  city  would  have  impeded  or  suppressed 
any  revolutionary  attempt.  A  few  days  thereafter,  when  my  Govern- 
ment intrusted  me  with  the  duty  of  leading  the  army  that  was  to 
embark  at  Puerto  Colombia  to  go  and  restore  order  on  the  Isthmus, 
being  unacquainted  except  in  an  imperfect  manner  with  the  attitude 
assumed  by  the  American  war  ships,  I  had  the  honor  to  address  a  note 
on  the  subject  to  Vice  Admiral  Coghlan,  and  in  his  reply,  which  was 
not  delayed,  he  tells  me  that — 

his  present  orders  are  to  prevent  the  landing  of  soldiers  with  hostile  intent 
within  the  boundary  of  the   State  of  Panama. 

The  Republic  of  Colombia,  with  a  population  of  5,000,000  souls,  is 
divided  into  nine  departments,  of  which  Panama  is  one  of  the  least 
populous,  as  the  number  of  its  inhabitants  does  not  exceed  250,000, 
while  there  are  others  in  each  of  which  they  number  over  900,000. 
The  Colombian  army  at  the  time  consisted  of  10,000  men,  a  force 

1  Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Adams,  No.  10,  May  21,  1861. — Translator. 


486  DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA  CANAL. 

more  than  sufficient  to  suppress  the  Panaman  revolution  if  Your 
Excellency's  Government  had  not  prevented  the  landing  of  the  troops 
under  my  command  that  were  to  embark  at  Puerto  Colombia  under 
Generals  Ospina,  Holguin,  and  Calballero,  who  soon  thereafter  ac- 
companied me  to  that  city,  and  at  Buenaventura,  on  the  Pacific,  under 
Generals  Velazco,  Dominguez,  and  others.  It  is  known  that  there  is 
no  overland  way  to  reach  Panama  with  troops  from  the  interior  of 
Colombia. 

The  gravity  of  the  facts  contained  in  this  recital  increases  as  they 
draw  closer  to  the  end. 

In  the  midst  of  profound  peace  between  the  two  countries,  the 
United  States  prevented,  by  force,  the  landing  of  troops  where  they 
were  necessary  to  reestablish  order,  in  a  few  hours,  in  the  insurgent 
province.  Because  of  this  circumstance,  and  as  a  coup  de  main,  cer- 
tain citizens  of  Panama,  without  taking  into  account  the  consent  of 
the  other  towns  of  the  department,  proclaimed  the  independence  of 
the  Isthmus  and  organized  a  government.  Two  days  after  effect- 
ing that  movement  they  were  recognized  by  the  American  Govern- 
ment as  a  sovereign  and  independent  Republic,  and  fourteen  days 
later  the  American  Government  signed  a  treaty  with  the  Republic 
of  Panama  which  not  only  recognized  and  guaranteed  its  independ- 
ence, but  agreed  to  open  a  canal  for  the  purpose  of  uniting  the  waters 
of  the  Atlantic  with  those  of  the  Pacific. 

It  is'  well  known  that  the  contract  which  Colombia  made  with  the 
French  company,  in  the  exercise  of  its  perfect  right,  for  the  construc- 
tion of  this  canal,  is  in  force  and  will  remain  in  full  force  and  vigor, 
legally  at  least,  so  long  as  Colombia  does  not  give  her  consent  for  its 
transfer  to  a  foreign  government;  since,  in  the  aforesaid  contract,  it 
is  expressly  stipulated  that  a  transfer  to  any  foreign  government,  or 
any  attempt  whatever  to  make  a  transfer,  would  be  cause  for  absolute 
nullification. 

The  same  is  true  with  regard  to  the  Panama  Railroad  Company; 
so  that  without  the  express  consent  of  Colombia  no  transfer  can 
have  legal  effect,  because  it  can  not  cancel  the  legal  bonds  which  exist 
between  the  Republic  of  Colombia  and  those  companies — bonds 
growing  out  of  perfect  contracts,  which,  according  to  the  precepts  of 
universal  jurisprudence,  can  not  be  disregarded  because  one  of  the 
parties  may  consider  that  the  strip  of  land  in  which  the  enterprise 
radicated  has  been  conquered  by  a  foreign  country.  The  lapse  of 
many  years  is  necessary  in  order  that  the  facts  may  establish  the 
right,  and  even  without  the  need  of  such  time  elapsing  the  Colom- 
bians feel  sure  that  the  justice  and  equity  which  control  the  acts  of 
Your  Excellency's  Government  in  its  relations  with  all  nations  are  a 
sure  pledge  that  our  complaints  and  claims  will  be  heeded. 

Nor  is  it  just  to  expect  anything  else  in  view  of  the  constant  prac- 
tice which  the  United  States  has  established  in  similar  cases.  Among 
many  others  are  set  forth  in  its  diplomatic  annals  the  antecedent 
history  relative  to  the  independence  of  South  American  States,  pro- 
claimed in  1810:  that  of  the  new  State  of  Hungary,  in  the  middle  of 
the  last  century;  and  that  of  Ireland,  later,  in  1866;  not  to  make 
mention  of  the  practice  systematically  observed  by  the  powers,  of 
which  their  procedure  when  the  Netherlands  proclaimed  independ- 
ence in  the  time  of  the  Philips  of  Spain  is  an  example.  In  this  rela- 
the  precedent  of  Texas,  when  the  United  States  Senate  disap- 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  487 

proved  the  treaty  signed  by  the  Washington  Cabinet  with  the  seces- 
sionists of  that  Mexican  province,  has  an  especial  significance. 

In  the  note  of  Mr.  Seward,  Secretary  of  State,  to  Mr.  Adams, 
United  States  minister,  in  1861,  this  doctrine  is  found : 

We  freely  admit  that  a  nation  may,  and  even  ought,  to  recognize  a  new  State 
which  has  absolutely  and  beyond  question  effected  its  independence,  and  perma- 
nently established  its  sovereignty;  and  that  a  recognition  in  such  a  case  affords 
no  just  cause  of  offense  to  the  government  of  the  country  from  which  the  new 
State  has  so  detached  itself.  On  the  other  hand,  we  insist  that  a  nation  that 
recognizes  a  revolutionary  State,  with  a  view  to  aid  its  effecting  its  sovereignty 
and  independence,  commits  a  great  wrong  against  the  nation  whose  integrity 
is  thus  invaded,  and  makes  itself  responsible  for  a  just  and  ample  redress. 
(Foreign  Relations,  1861,  pp.  76-77.) 

At  another  point  in  the  same  note  the  Secretary  says  to  the  min- 
ister : 

To  recognize  the  independence  of  a  new  State,  and  so  favor,  possibly  deter- 
mine, its  admission  into  the  family  of  nations,  is  the  highest  possible  exercise 
of  sovereign  power,  because  it  affects  in  any  case  the  welfare  of  two  nations, 
and  often  the  peace  of  the  world.  In  the  European  system  this  power  is  now 
seldom  attempted  to  be  exercised  without  invoking  a  consultation  or  congress 
of  nations.  That  system  has  not  been  extended  to  this  continent.  But  there 
is  even  a  greater  necessity  for  prudence  in  such  cases  in  regard  to  American 
States  than  in  regard  to  the  nations  of  Europe.  (Foreign  Relations,  1861,  p.  79, 
Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Adams,  No.  2,  April  10,  1861.) 

Eeferring  to  the  consideration  which  nations  should  mutually 
observe,  he  adds : 

Seen  in  the  light  of  this  principle,  the  several  nations  of  the  earth  constitute 
one  great  federal  republic.  When  one  of  them  casts  its  suffrages  for  the 
admission  of  a  new  member  into  that  republic,  it  ought  to  act  under  a  profound 
sense  of  moral  obligation,  and  be  governed  by  considerations  as  pure,  disinter- 
ested, and  elevated  as  the  general  interest  of  society  and  the  advancement  of 
human  nature.  (Foreign  Relations,  1861,  p.  79,  Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Adams, 
No.  2,  April  10,  1861.) 

It  would  seem  that  nothing  could  be  added  to  the  benevolence  of 
these  noble  and  humanitarian  doctrines,  written  by  the  great  man, 
who,  unhappily  for  his  country  and  for  Colombia,  is  not  living 
to-day. 

If  the  sovereignty  of  a  nation  gives  to  it  especially  the  power  to 
govern  itself;  if  the  right  to  look'after  its  own  interests  is  an  attri- 
bute of  sovereignty;  if  upon  such  right  rests  the  stability  and 
security  of  international  relations,  respect  for  such  sovereignty 
should  be  the  more  heeded  by  one  who  is  obligated,  as  is  the  United 
States,  not  only  by  international  precepts  but  also  by  an  existing 
public  treaty  from  which  it  has  derived  indisputable  advantages. 
The  pertinent  part  of  the  thirty-fifth  article  of  the  treaty  in  force 
between  the  United  States  and  Colombia  reads  as  follows : 

And  in  order  to  secure  to  themselves  the  tranquil  and  constant  enjoyment  of 
these  advantages,  and  as  an  especial  compensation  for  the  said  advantages  and 
for  the  favors  they  have  acquired  by  the  fourth,  fifth,  and  sixth  articles  of  this 
treaty,  the  United  States  guarantees,  positively  and  efficaciously,  to  New 
Granada,  by  the  present  stipulation,  the  perfect  neutrality  of  the  before-men- 
tioned Isthmus,  with  the  view  that  the  free  transit  from  'the  one  to  the  other 
sea  may  not  be  interrupted  or  embarrassed  in  any  future  time  while  this  treaty 
exists;  and,  in  consequence,  the  United  States  also  guarantees,  in  the  same 
manner,  the  rights  of  sovereignty  and  property  which  New  Granada  has  and 
possesses  over  the  said  territory. 

It  may  be  said  that  the  power  of  the  United  States  is  for  the  time 
being  limitless,  not  only  by  reason  of  its  laws  and  its  resources  of 


488  DIPLOMATIC    HISTOEY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

every  kind,  but  also  on  account  of  the  respect  with  which  its  greatness 
inspires  the  world.  But  in  order  to  deal  justly  with  a  weak  country 
this  circumstance  should  be  taken  into  account — that,  in  stipulating 
to  guarantee  "  the  perfect  neutrality  and  property  of  the  Isthmus,"  it 
could  not  be  supposed  that  the  words  "  neutrality  "  and  "  property  " 
could  be  given  any  other  interpretation  than  the  technical  one  they 
have.  If,  by  a  coup  de  main,  the  revolutionists  have  snatched  from 
Colombia  the  property  of  the  Isthmus,  it  seems  natural  that  the 
United  States,  in  view  of  the  aforesaid  stipulation,  should  return  the 
property  to  its  legitimate  owner.  It  does  not  seem  right  to  give  the 
word  ';  neutrality "  the  interpretation  that,  by  its  application,  the 
acts  of  the  revolutionists  shall  be  left  free,  because,  among  other  rea- 
sons, the  stipulation  contained  in  the  thirty-fifth  article  above  quoted 
excepts  no  case ;  nor  did  it  foresee,  as  it  could  not  have  foreseen,  that 
the  United  States  would  prevent  Colombia  from  landing  her  forces  in 
Panama  territory  in  case  of  secession. 

If  Colombia  had  not  sufficient  force  to  compel  Panama  to  remain  a 
part  of  the  national  unit,  it  would,  without  doubt,  have  asked  the 
mediation  of  some  friendly  country  in  order  to  reach  an  understand- 
ing with  the  de  facto  government  which  has  been  established  there. 

But  for  it  to  have  been  able  to  subdue  it  by  force  it  was  necessary 
that  Your  Excellency's  Government  should  remain  neutral  in  the  dis- 
pute; in  not  having  done  so,  your  Government,  itself,  violated  "the 
rights  of  sovereignty  and  the  property  which  Colombia  has  and  pos- 
sesses over  the  said  territory,"  not  complying,  consequently,  with  the 
obligation  it  contracted  to  guarantee  those  rights  as  set  forth  in  the 
above-cited  part  of  the  thirty-fifth  article  of  the  treaty.  And  it 
may  be  observed  that  the  United  States  continues  deriving  the  ad- 
vantages granted  under  the  treaty,  while  we  lose  those  which  we  gave 
in  order  to  obtain  such  guarantees. 

The  true  character  of  the  new  State  of  Panama  is  revealed  in  the 
fact  that  it  came  into  existence  by  a  coup  de  main,  effected  by  the 
winning  over  of  troops,  valorous  without  doubt,  but  who  have  fought 
against  no  one,  assaulted  no  intrenchment,  captured  no  fort — con- 
tenting themselves  with  putting  in  prison  the  constituted  authorities. 

If  conserving  our  national  integrity,  with  a  few  years  of  peace  we 
could  recover  the  powers  we  have  lost  through  unfortunate  civil  wars 
and  could  hope,  by  reason  of  the  moral  and  physical  capacity  of  our 
race,  to  take  a  distinguished  position  in  the  American  continent;  but 
if  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  by  preventing  the  military 
action  of  Colombia  to  subject  the  rebels  to  loyal  obedience,  should,  in 
a  way,  make  itself  the  ally  of  the  Panama  revolutionists,  that  Gov- 
ernment will  be  responsible  for  any  new  secession  movement  that 
may  occur,  and  also,  before  history  at  least,  for  any  anarchy,  license, 
and  dissolution  which  a  further  dismemberment  might  occasion. 
Sad  indeed  is  the  fate  of  my  country,  condemned  at  times  to  suffer 
calamities  from  its  own  revolutions  and  at  others  to  witness  the 
unexpected  attacks  of  a  powerful  but  friendly  State,  which  for  the 
first  time  breaks  its  honored  traditions  of  respect  for  right — espe- 
cially the  right  of  the  weak — to  deliver  us  pitilessly  to  the  unhappy 
hazards  of  fortune. 

There  shall  be  a  perfect,  firm,  and  inviolable  peace  [says  the  first  article  of  the 
aforesaid  treaty],  and  sincere  friendship  between  the  United  States  of  America 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY    OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  489 

and  the  Republic  of  New  Granada  (now  Colombia)  in  all  the  extent  of  their 
possessions  and  territories,  and  between  their  citizens,  respectively,  without 
distinction  of  persons  or  places. 

If  the  United  States  repels  by  force  the  action  of  our  armies  in 
Panama,  is  not  this  a  clear  violation  of  this  article,  since  peace  in  one 
of  the  Colombian  territorial  possessions  is  broken  ? 

The  Panama  revolutionists,  counseled  by  speculators  from  several 
countries,  who  had  assumed  the  direction  of  affairs,  did  not  consult 
the  opinion  of  the  inhabitants  of  their  own  territory,  for  there  are 
good  reasons  for  the  belief  that  there  are  in  that  territory  thousands 
of  persons  who,  respecting  order  and  authority,  have  condemned  the 
separatist  movement  with  a  determined  will  and  in  most  energetic 
and  severe  terms. 

Colombia,  in  its  internal  law,  has  never  recognized  the  principle  of 
secession,  because,  among  other  reasons,  the  obligations  contracted 
with  foreign  nations  by  treaty,  or  with  private  parties  by  contract, 
rest  upon  the  mass  of  the  assets  which  the  State  possessed  at  the  mo- 
ment when  the  common  authority  contracted  such  obligations. 

If  the  people  of  Panama,  animated  by  the  noble  sentiments  which 
induced  men  of  action  to  seek  quicker  and  more  rapid  progress,  had 
proclaimed  their  independence  and,  without  foreign  aid,  been  victo- 
rious in  battle  waged  against  the  armies  of  the  mother  country,  had 
organized  a  government,  drawn  up  laws,  and  proved  to  the  world  that 
it  could  govern  itself  by  itself  and  be  responsible  to  other  nations  for 
its  conduct,  without  doubt  it  would  have  become  entitled  to  recogni- 
tion by  all  the  powers. 

/  But  none  of  these  things  having  occurred,  and  judging  by  the  prac- 
tice which  in  similar  cases  has  guided  the  conduct  of  the  American 
Government,  the  belief  is  warrantable  that  the  recognition  that  has 
been  given  would  probably  not  have  been  made  if  there  had  not 
existed  in  Panama  the  best  route  for  the  isthmian  canal.  / 

In  the  former  case  Colombia  would  have  had  no  right  to  complain 
of  the  failure  to  fulfill  the  existing  treaty,  nor  would  it  have  shunned 
any  legitimate  means  for  seeking  an  arrangement  that  should  dissolve 
the  civil  bonds  which  unite  it  with  those  enterprises  radicated  on 
Panama  territory  by  contracts  made  in  the  exercise  of  a  perfect  right. 

But  Panama  has  become  independent,  has  organized  a  Govern- 
ment, has  induced  a  few  powers  prematurely  to  recognize  her  sover- 
eignty, has  usurped  rights  which  do  not  belong  to  her  in  any  case, 
and  has  ignored  the  debts,  which  weigh  upon  Colombia  (debts  con- 
tracted, many  of  them,  to  reestablish  order  which  her  sons  have  often 
disturbed),  because  the  Government  of  the  United  States  has  desired 
it;  because,  with  its  incomparably  superior  force,  the  United  States 
has  prevented  the  landing  of  Colombian  troops  destined  to  reestab- 
lish order  after  our  having  exhausted  every  possible  means  of 
friendly  understanding;  because  the  United  States,  even  before  the 
separatist  movement  was  known  in  Bogota,  had  its  powerful  war 
vessels  at  the  entrances  of  our  ports,  preventing  the  departure  of  our 
battalions;  because,  without  regarding  the  precedents  established  by 
statesmen  who  have  dealt  with  this  matter,  the  United  States  has  not 
respected  our  rights  in  that  strip  of  land  which  Colombia  considers 
as  a  divine  bequest  for  the  innocent  use  of  the  American  family  of 
States;  and,  finally,  because  the  Government  of  the  United  States, 


490  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OP   THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

invoking  and  putting  into  practice  the  right  of  might,  has  taken  from 
us  by  bloodless  conquest — but  by  conquest,  nevertheless — the  most 
important  part  of  the  national  territory. 

Every  nation  is  responsible  to  other  nations  for  its  conduct,  whence 
it  follows  that  all  have  among  themselves  rights  and  obligations,  but 
these  rights  and  obligations  are  limited  by  the  right  of  property.  The 
owner  of  an  estate  can  not  oppose  the  passage  through  his  land — for 
example,  of  a  railroad  which  the  community  needs — but  he  may  de- 
mand that  he  be  indemnified  for  the  damage  done  him.  In  the  same 
manner  a  State  should  certainly  not  obstruct  the  passage  through  its 
territory  of  a  canal  which  the  progress  of  the  age  and  the  needs  of 
humanity  have  made  necessary,  but  it  has  the  right  to  impose  condi- 
tions which  shall  save  its  sovereignty  and  to  demand  indemnification 
for  the  use  thereof.  Reasons  based  on  the  needs  of  humanity  are  un- 
doubtedly very  powerful,  but  they  do  not  convincingly  prove  that  the 
legitimate  owner  shall  be  deprived  of  a  large  part  of  his  territory  to 
satisfy  such  needs. 

It  might  be  said  to  me  that  exaggerated  demands  or  obstacles  which 
are  intentionally  raised  are  equivalent  to  a  refusal.  But  this  is  not 
our  case.  Colombia  has  made  divers  treaties  and  contracts  with  for- 
eign countries  for  the  construction  of  a  Panama  Canal,  and  if  they 
have  not  been  carried  into  effect,  as  was  the  case  with  the  treaty  with 
the  United  States  in  1870  and  the  contract  with  the  French  company 
later,  it  was  not  the  fault  of  Colombia.  Our  demands  have  not  been 
exaggerated,  inasmuch  as  the  terms  of  the  treaty  negotiated  with  the 
American  representative  were  more  advantageous  than  those  stipu- 
lated with  the  French  representative,  and  the  conditions  set  forth  in 
the  Hay-Herran  convention  were  much  more  disadvantageous  than 
those  made  with  the  French  company.  The  fact  that  the  United 
States  demands  from  us,  in  order  to  carry  out  the  enterprise,  a  part 
of  our  sovereignty,  which,  under  our  laws,  we  can  not  legally  con- 
cede so  long  as  the  constitution  is  not  modified,  because  the  powers 
that  did  it  would  be  responsible  before  the  judicial  branch,  does  not 
mean  that  we  have  been  opposed  nor  that  we  are  opposed  to  the 
realization  of  the  greatest  undertaking  of  the  kind  which  the  past 
and  future  centuries  have  seen  or  will  see. 

Civil  wars  are  a  calamity  from  which  no  nation  has  ever  been 
able  to  free  itself.  This  being  true,  to  hold  responsible  the  Gov- 
ernment which  suffers  revolutions  because  it  can  not  prevent  them 
or  because  it  hastens  to  remedy  them  when  danger  menaces  seems 
a  notorious  injustice,  because,  if  the  principle  of  foreign  interven- 
tion in  civil  conflicts  were  accepted,  there  would  be  few  casas  that 
would  not  be  converted  in  the  end  into  international  wars.  To  re- 
frain from  dealing  or  treating  with  a  State  for  fear  of  civil  wars 
might  be  deemed  equivalent  to  refraining  from  "  constructing  ships 
for  fear  of  shipwrecks  or  building  houses  for  fear  of  fire."  Nor  is 
it  understood  what  power  there  would  be  that  would  assume  the 
unhappy  task  of  imposing  peace  upon  the  rest,  nor  under  what  con- 
ditions it  would  do  so,  since  to  take  away  portions  of  their  territory 
would  be  a  punishment  greater  than  the  fault. 

In  this  crisis  of  the  life  of  my  country,  as  unlooked  for  as  it  is 
terrible,  Colombia  rests  its  most  comforting  hopes  in  the  sentiments 
of  justice  which  animate  the  Government  of  your  excellency,  and 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  491 

confidently  trusts  that  that  Government,  which  has  so  many  times 
surprised  the  world  by  its  wisdom,  will,  on  this  occasion,  astonish  it 
by  its  example. 

In  any  event,  Colombia  complies  with  the  duty  imposed  upon  her 
by  the  treaty  of  1846  in  that  part  of  the  35th  article  which  says : 

*  *  *  neither  of  the  two  contracting  parties  shall  ordain  or  authorize  any 
acts  of  reprisal,  nor  shall  declare  war  against  the  other  on  complaints  of  injuries 
or  damages,  until  the  said  party  considering  itself  offended  shall  have  laid  be- 
fore the  other  a  statement  of  such  injuries  or  damages,  verified  by  competent 
proofs,  demanding  justice  and  satisfaction,  and  the  same  shall  have  been 
denied,  in  violation  of  the  laws  and  of  international  right. 

Since  the  aforesaid  treaty  is  the  law  which  governs  between  the  two 
countries,  and  now  that  the  weakness  and  ruin  of  my  country,  after 
three  years  of  civil  war  scarcely  at  an  end,  and  in  which  her  bravest 
sons  were  lost  by  thousands,  place  her  in  the  unhappy  position  of  ask- 
ing justice  of  the  Government  of  your  excellency,  I  propose  that  the 
claims  which  I  make  in  the  present  note  on  account  of  the  violation  of 
the  aforesaid  treaty,  and  all  other  claims  which  may  hereafter  be 
made  in  connection  with  the  events  of  Panama,  be  submitted  to  the 
Arbitration  Tribunal  of  The  Hague. 

With  sentiments  of  the  most  distinguished  consideration  and  high 
esteem.  I  have  the  honor  to  subscribe  myself. 

Your  excellency's  very  obedient  and  faithful  servant. 

Rafael  Reyes. 
Hon.  John  Hay, 

Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States, 

Washington,  D.  C. 


Mr.  Hay  to  General  Reyes. 

Department  of  State, 
Washington,  January  5,  1904- 

Sir:  The  Government  of  the  United  States  has  carefully  consid- 
ered the  grave  complaints  so  ably  set  forth  in  the  "  statement  of 
grievances  "  presented  on  behalf  of  the  Government  and  people  of 
Colombia,  with  your  note  of  the  23d  ultimo. 

The  Government  and  people  of  the  United  States  have  ever  enter- 
tained toward  the  Government  and  people  of  Colombia  the  most 
friendly  sentiments,  and  it  is  their  earnest  wish  and  hope  that  the 
bonds  of  amity  that  unite  the  two  peoples  may  forever  remain 
unbroken.  In  this  spirit  the  Government  of  the  United  States, 
mindful  that  between  even  the  most  friendly  nations  differences 
sometimes  unhappily  arise,  has  given  to  your  representations  the  most 
deliberate  and  earnest  attention,  and  in  the  same  spirit  it  will  employ 
every  effort  consistent  with  justice  and  with  its  duty  to  itself  and 
to  other  nations  not  only  to  maintain  but  also  to  strengthen  the  good 
relations  between  the  two  countries. 

At  the  present  moment  the  questions  which  you  submit  can  be 
viewed  only  in  the  light  of  accomplished  facts.  The  Republic  of 
Panama  has  become  a  member  of  the  family  of  nations.  Its  inde- 
pendence has  been  recognized  by  the  Governments  of  the  United 
States,  France,  China,  Austria-Hungary,  Germany.  Denmark.  Russia, 
Sweden    and    Norway.    Belgium,    Nicaragua.    Peru,    Cuba.    Great 


492  DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

Britain.  Italy,  Japan,  Costa  Rica,  and  Switzerland.  These  solemn 
acts  of  recognition  carry  with  them  international  obligations  which, 
in  peace  as  in  war,  are  fixed  by  the  law  of  nations  and  which  can  not 
be  disregarded.  A  due  appreciation  of  this  circumstance  is  shown 
in  your  admission,  made  with  a  frankness  and  fairness  honorable 
alike  to  your  Government  and  to  yourself,  that  "  Panama  has  become 
independent — has  organized  a  government." 

The  action  not  merely,  as  you  observe,  of  a  "  few  powers,"  but  of 
all  the  so-called  "great  powers"  and  many  of  the  lesser  ones, in  recog- 
nizing the  independence  of  Panama,  leaves  no  doubt  as  to  the  public 
opinion  of  the  world  concerning  the  propriety  of  that  measure.  The 
law  of  nations  does  not  undertake  to  fix  the  precise  time  at  which 
recognition  shall  or  may  be  extended  to  a  new  State.  This  is  a  ques- 
tion to  be  determined  by  each  State  upon  its  own  just  sense  of  inter- 
national rights  and  obligations  ;(and  it  has  rarely  happened,  where  a 
new  State  has  been  formed  ana  recognized  within  the  limits  of  an 
existing  State,  that  the  parent  State  has  not  complained  that  the 
recognition  was  premature.  J  And  if  in  the  present  instance  the  pow- 
ers of  the  world  gave  their  recognition  with  unwonted  promptitude, 
it  is  only  because  they  entertained  the  common  conviction  that  inter- 
ests of  vast  importance  to  the  whole  civilized  world  were  at  stake, 
which  would  by  any  other  course  be  put  in  peril. 

The  independence  of  the  Republic  of  Panama  being  an  admitted 
fact,  the  department  will  proceed  to  consider  the  complaints  pre- 
sented by  you  on  behalf  of  your  Government  as  to  the  manner  in 
which  that  independence  was  established.  In  performing  this  task 
I  desire  to  avoid  all  appearance  of  recrimination;  and,  if  I  shall  not 
be  wholly  successful  in  so  doing,  it  is  only  because  I  am  under  the 
necessity  of  vindicating  the  conduct  of  this  Government  against  re- 
proaches of  the  most  grave  and  unusual  character.  The  department 
is  in  duty  bound  to  deal  with  these  charges  in  a  spirit  of  the  utmost 
candor;  but  in  performing  this  duty  it  will  not  seek  in  unofficial 
sources  material  for  unjust  and  groundless  aspersions.  It  is  greatly 
to  be  regretted  that  your  duty  to  your  Government  could  not,  in  your 
estimation,  have  been  discharged  within  similar  limitations. 

With  every  disposition  to  advance  the  purpose  of  your  mission, 
the  department  has  read  with  surprise  your  repetition  of  gross  im- 
putations upon  the  conduct  and  motives  of  this  Government,  which 
are  said  to  have  appeared  in  "  reputable  American  newspapers."  The 
press  in  this  country  is  entirely  free,  and  as  a  necessary  consequence 
represents  substantially  every  phase  of  human  activity,  interest,  and 
disposition.  Not  only  is  the  course  of  the  Government  in  all  matters 
subject  to  daily  comment,  but  the  motives  of  public  men  are  as 
freely  discussed  as  their  acts;  and  if,  as  sometimes  happens,  criti- 
cism proceeds  to  the  point  of  calumny,  the  evil  is  left  to  work  its  own 
cure.  Diplomatic  representatives,  however,  are  not  supposed  to  seek 
in  such  sources  material  for  arguments,  much  less  for  grave  accusa- 
tions. Any  charge  that  this  Government,  or  any  responsible  mem- 
ber of  it,  held  intercourse,  whether  official  or  unofficial,  with  agents 
of  revolution  in  Colombia,  is  utterly  without  justification. 

Equally  so  is  the  insinuation  that  any  action  of  this  Government, 
prior  to  the  revolution  in  Panama,  was  the  result  of  complicity  with 
the  plans  of  the  revolutionists.  The  department  sees  fit  to  make  these 
denials,  and  it  makes  them  finally. 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  493 

The  origin  of  the  Republic  of  Panama  and  the  reasons  for  its  inde- 
pendent existence  may  be  traced  in  certain  acts  of  the  Government  of 
Colombia,  which  are  matters  of  official  record. 

It  is  a  matter  of  common  knowledge  that  the  quest  of  a  way  to  the 
westward,  across  the  sea,  from  Europe  to  Asia  led  to  the  discovery 
and  settlement  of  the  American  continents.  The  process  of  coloniza- 
tion had,  however,  scarcely  begun  when  the  adventurous  spirits  of 
that  age,  not  to  be  balked  in  their  undertaking  by  an  obstacle  that 
seemed  to  be  removable,  began  to  form  projects  for  a  canal  to  connect 
the  Atlantic  and  Pacific  Oceans.  As  early  as  1528  a  proposal  was  laid 
before  the  Emperor  Charles  V  for  the  opening  of  such  a  way  across 
the  Isthmus  of  Panama.  From  that  day  to  the  present  the  project 
has  continued  to  occupy  a  place  among  the  great  enterprises  yet  to  be 
accomplished.  It  remains  unfulfilled  only  because  the  experience  of 
four  hundred  years  has  demonstrated  that  private  effort  is  wholly 
inadequate  to  the  purpose,  and  that  the  work  must  be  performed,  if 
at  all,  under  the  auspices  of  a  government  of  the  largest  resources. 
There  was  only  one  such  government  in  a  position  to  undertake  it. 
By  a  well  settled  policy,  in  which  all  American  nations  are  under- 
stood to  concur,  the  assumption  of  the  task  by  any  of  the  great  gov- 
ernments of  Europe  was  pronounced  to  be  inadmissible.  Among 
American  governments  there  was  only  one  that  seemed  to  be  able  to 
assume  the  burden  and  that  was  the  Government  of  the  United 
States. 

Such  was  the  precise  situation  when  the  United  States  manifested 
its  determination  to  construct  the  great  highway  across  the  American 
isthmus.  Its  purpose  was  universally  applauded.  The  circumstance 
that  this  Government  possibly  might,  in  return  for  the  great  expendi- 
tures which  it  was  about  to  hazard,  derive  from  the  construction  of 
the  canal  some  special  advantage  was  not  thought  to  be  a  reason 
for  opposing  what  was  to  be  of  such  vast  benefit  to  all  mankind.  The 
Clayton-Bulwer  treaty  was  conceived  to  form  an  obstacle,  and  the 
British  Government  therefore  agreed  to  abrogate  it,  the  United  States 
only  promising  in  return  to  protect  the  canal  and  keep  it  open  on 
equal  terms  to  all  nations,  in  accordance  with  our  traditional  policy, 
Nor  were  indications  wanting  of  appreciation  on  the  part  of  the 
American  Republics.  On  January  22,  1902,  the  second  Pan-Ameri- 
can conference,  sitting  at  the  City  of  Mexico,  adopted  the  following 
resolution : 

The  Republics  assembled  at  the  International  Conference  of  Mexico  applaud 
the  purpose  of  the  United  States  Government  to  construct  an  interoceauic  canal, 
and  acknowledge  that  this  work  will  not  only  be  worthy  of  the  greatness  of  the 
American  people,  but  also  in  the  highest  sense  a  work  of  civilization  and  to  the 
greatest  degree  beneficial  to  the  development  of  commerce  between  the  Ameri- 
can States  and  the  other  countries  of  the  world. 

Among  the  delegates  who  signed  this  resolution.  which  was  adopted 
without  dissent,  was  the  delegate  of  Colombia. 

At  that  time  the  Government  of  the  United  States  had  not  for- 
mally decided  upon  the  route  for  the  canal,  whether  by  way  of  Pan- 
ama or  of  Nicaragua.  Owing  to  the  lack  of  correct  information  there 
had  long  existed  a  strong  tendency  toward  the  latter  route;  but,  as 
the  result  of  more  thorough  investigations,  a  decided  change  in  opin- 
ion had  begun  to  appear.  To  Colombia  this  change  was  understood 
to  be  very  gratifying.     As  early  as  May  15,  1897.  the  Colombian 


494  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OP    THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

charge  d'affaires  at  Washington,  speaking  in  the  name  of  his  Govern- 
ment, represented  in  a  "  friendly  spirit "  that  any  official  assistance 
extended  by  the  United  States  to  the  Nicaraguan  Canal  Company 
would  work  serious  injury  to  Colombia. 

In  a  similar  sense  Serior  Martinez  Silya,  then  Colombian  minister 
at__this  capital,  in  a  note  of  December  7,  1901,  referring  to  a  press 
report  that  the  Isthmian  Canal  Commission  had,  by  reason  of  the 
excessive  price  fixed  by  the  Panama  Canal  Company,  reported  in 
favor  of  the  Nicaraguan  route,  assured  the  department  that  the  price 
was  not  final,  and,  after  declaring  that  the  matter  was  one  that 
affected  "  the  interests  of  the  Colombian  Government,  which  is  well 
disposed  to  facilitate  the  construction  of  the  proposed  interoceanic 
canal  through  its  territory,"  said : 

It  would  indeed  be  unfortunate  if,  through  misunderstandings  arising  from 
the  absence  of  timely  explanations,  the  Government  of  the  United  States  should 
be  forced  to  select  a  route  for  the  proposed  canal  which  would  be  longer,  more 
expensive,  both  in  construction  and  maintenance,  and  less  adapted  to  the  com- 
merce of  the  world  than  the  short  and  half-finished  canal  available  at  Panama. 

On  June  28,  1902,  the  President  of  the  United  States  gave  his 
approval  to  the  act  now  commonly  referred  to  as  the  Spooner  Act,  to 
provide  for  the  construction  of  the  interoceanic  canal.  Following  the 
report  of  the  Isthmian  Canal  Commission,  which  confirmed  the 
opinion  expressed  by  the  Colombian  Government,  it  embodied  the 
formal  decision  of  the  United  States  in  favor  of  the  Panama  route. 
It  accordingly  authorized  the  President  to  acquire,  at  a  cost  not  ex- 
ceeding $40,000,000,  "  the  rights,  privileges,  franchises,  concessions," 
and  other  property  of  the  New  Panama  Canal  Company,  including 
its  interest  in  the  Panama  Railroad  Company,  and  to  obtain  from 
Colombia  on  such  terms  as  he  might  deem  reasonable  perpetual  con- 
trol for  the  purposes  of  the  canal  of  a  strip  of  land  not  less  than  six 
miles  wide,  such  control  to  include  jurisdiction  to  make  and,  through 
such  tribunals  as  might  be  agreed  on,  to  enforce  such  police  and  sani- 
tary rules  and  regulations  as  should  be  necessary  to  the  preservation 
of  order  and  of  the  public  health. 

The  act  also  provided,  in  a  clause  to  which  your  statement  adverts, 
that,  in  case  the  President  should  "  be  unable  to  obtain  for  the  United 
States  a  satisfactory  title  to  the  propery  of  the  New  Panama  Canal 
Company  and  the  control  of  the  necessary  territory  of  the  Republic 
of  Colombia,"  together  with  the  "  rights  "  mentioned  in  connection 
therewith,  "  within  a  reasonable  time  and  upon  reasonable  terms,"  he 
should  turn  to  Nicaragua.  But  this  provision,  while  it  indicated  that 
the  construction  of  the  canal  was  not  wholly  to  depend  upon  the  suc- 
cess or  failure  to  make  reasonable  terms  with  Colombia  and  the  canal 
company,  by  no  means  implied  that  the  question  of  routes  was  a  mat- 
ter of  indifference. 

In  the  nature  of  things  it  could  not  be  so.  Not  only  was  the  work 
to  endure  for  all  time,  but  its  prompt  construction  was  felt  to  be  of 
vast  importance;  and  it  could  not  be  a  matter  of  less  concern  to  the 
United  States  than  to  Colombia  that  this  Government  might  possibly 
be  forced  to  adopt  a  route  which  would,  as  the  Colombian  minister 
had  observed — 

be  longer,  more  expensive,  both  In  construction  and  maintenance,  and  less 
adapted  to  the  commerce  of  the  world  than  the  short  and  half-finished  canal 
available  at  Panama. 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  495 

Nevertheless,  even  if  the  route  by  Panama  had  been  found  to  be  the 
only  feasible  one,  it  would  have  been  highly  imprudent  for  this  Gov- 
ernment to  expose  itself  to  exorbitant  demands. 

It  possessed,  indeed,  the  gratifying  assurance  that  the  Colombian 
Government  was  "  well  disposed  to  facilitate  the  construction  of  the 
proposed  interoceanic  canal  through  its  territory,"  and  the  depart- 
ment is  pleased  to  add  to  this  your  present  assurance  that  Colombia 
considers  the  canal  strip  "  as  a  Divine  bequest  for  the  innocent  use  of 
the  American  family;"  but  it  was  fully  understood  that,  before  the 
canal  was  begun,  arrangements  of  a  very  substantial  kind  would  have 
to  be  made ;  and  it  was  felt  that,  no  matter  how  generous  the  views  of 
the  Colombian  Government  might  be,  the  canal  company  might  be 
indisposed  to  act  in  the  same  liberal  spirit. 

The  Spooner  Act,  in  providing  for  the  acquisition  by  the  United 
States  of  a  limited  control  over  the  canal  strip,  merely  followed  the 
lines  of  previous  negotiations  with  Nicaragua  and  Costa  Rica.  Under 
any  circumstances,  the  exercise  of  such  control  could  not  have  been 
considered  unreasonable,  but  it  was  deemed  to  be  altogether  essential, 
in  view  of  the  unsettled  political  and  social  conditions  which  had  for 
many  years  prevailed,  and  which  unhappily  still  continued  to  exist, 
along  the  canal  routes,  both  in  Nicaragua  and  in  Panama.  Its  neces- 
sity was  clearly  recognized  in  the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty,  and  it  was 
on  all  sides  fully  understood  to  form  a  requisite  part  of  any  plan  for 
the  construction  of  the  canal  by  the  United  States.  Neither  while  the 
Spooner  Act  was  pending  before  Congress  nor  at  any  previous  time 
was  it  intimated  from  any  quarter  that  it  would  form  a  bar  to  the 
carrying  out  of  the  great  project  for  which  the  local  sovereigns  of  the 
canal  routes  were  then  such  ardent  competitors. 

After  the  Spooner  Act  was  approved,  negotiations  were  duly  initi- 
ated by  Colombia.  They  resulted  on  January  22,  1903,  in  the  con- 
clusion of  the  Hay-Herran  convention.  By  this  convention  every 
reasonable  desire  of  the  Colombian  Government  was  believed  to  be 
gratified.  Although  the  concession  to  the  United  States  of  the  right 
to  construct,  operate,  and  protect  the  canal  was  understood  to  be  in 
its  nature  perpetual,  yet,  in  order  that  no  technical  objection  might 
be  raised,  it  was  limited  to  a  term  of  one  hundred  years,  renewable  at 
the  option  of  this  Government  for  periods  of  a  similar  duration. 
The  limited  control  desired  by  the  United  States  of  the  canal  strip 
for  purposes  of  sanitation  and  police,  not  only  in  its  own  interest 
but  also  in  that  of  Colombia  and  all  other  governments,  was  duly  ac- 
quired. But  in  order  that  neither  this,  nor  any  other  right  or  privi- 
lege, granted  to  the  United  States,  might  give  rise  to  misconception 
as  to  the  purposes  of  this  Government,  there  was  inserted  in  the  con- 
vention this  explicit  declaration : 

The  United  States  freely  acknowledges  and  recognizes  this  sovereignty  [of 
Colombia]  and  disavows  any  intention  to  impair  it  in  any  way  whatever  or  to 
increase  its  territory  at  the  expense  of  Colombia  or  of  any  of  the  sister  Republics 
in  Central  or  South  America ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  it  desires  to  strengthen  the 
power  of  the  Republics  on  this  continent,  and  to  promote,  develop,  and  main- 
tain their  prosperity  and  independence. 

This  declaration  was,  besides,  confirmed  by  the  reaffirmation  of 
article  35  of  the  treaty  of  1846,  as  well  as  by  the  stipulations  made 
with  reference  to  the  protection  of  the  canal;  for  it  was  expressly 
provided  that  only  in  exceptional  circumstances,  on  account  of  unfore- 


496  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

seen  or  imminent  danger  to  the  canal,  railways,  or  other  works,  or  to 
the  lives  and  property  of  the  persons  employed  upon  them,  should 
the  United  States  employ  its  armed  forces  without  obtaining  the  pre- 
vious consent  of  the  Government  of  Colombia,  and  that  as  soon  as 
sufficient  Colombian  forces  should  arrive  for  the  purpose  those  of  the 
United  States  should  retire. 

,  Moreover,  in  view  of  the  great  and  to  some  extent  necessarily  un- 
foreseen expenses  and  responsibilities  to  be  incurred  by  the  United 
States,  the  pecuniary  compensation  agreed  to  be  made  to  Colombia 
was  exceedingly  liberal.  Upon  the  exchange  of  the  ratifications  of 
the  convention,  $10,000,000  in  gold  were  to  be  paid,  a  sum  equivalent 
to  two-thirds  of  what  is  reputed  to  be  the  total  amount  of  the  Colom- 
bian public  debt ;  and,  in  addition  to  this,  beginning  nine  years  after 
the  same  date,  an  annual  payment  of  $250,000  in  gold  was  to  be  made, 
a  sum  equivalent  to  the  interest  on  $15,000,000  at  the  rate  at  which 
loans  can  be  obtained  by  this  Government. 

Such  was  the  convention.  The  Department  will  now  consider  the 
manner  in  which  it  was  dealt  with. 

In  the  "  statement  of  grievances,"  to  which  I  have  now  the  honor  to 
reply,  a  prominent  place  is  given  to  the  stipulation  that  the  conven- 
tion when  signed  should  be  "  ratified  according  to  the  laws  of  the  re- 
spective countries,"  and  it  is  said  that  the  course  taken  in  Washington 
was  not  different  from  that  at  Bogota.  In  a  narrow,  technical  sense 
this  is  true,  but  in  a  broader  sense  no  supposition  could  be  more  mis- 
leading. The  convention  was  submitted  to  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States  on  the  day  following  its  signature.  From  first  to  last  it  was 
cordially  supported  by  the  Administration,  and  on  the  lTth  of  March 
it  was  approved  without  amendment. 

The  course  taken  at  Bogota  affords  a  complete  antithesis.  The 
department  is  not  disposed  to  controvert  the  principle  that  treaties 
are  not  definitely  binding  till  they  are  ratified ;  but  it  is  also  a  famil- 
iar rule  that  treaties,  except  where  they  operate  on  private  rights,  are, 
unless  it  is  otherwise  provided,  binding  on  the  contracting  parties 
from  the  date  of  their  signature,  and  that  in  such  case  the  exchange 
of  ratifications  confirms  the  treaty  from  that  date.  This  rule  nec- 
essarily implies  that  the  two  Governments,  in  agreeing  to  the  treaty 
through  their  duly  authorized  representatives,  bind  themselves, 
pending  its  ratification,  not  only  to  oppose  its  consummation  but 
also  to  do  nothing  in  contravention  of  its  terms. 

We  have  seen  that  by  the  Spooner  Act,  with  reference  to  which 
the  convention  was  negotiated,  the  President  was  authorized  to  ac- 
quire, at  a  cost  not  to  exceed  $40,000,000,  "the  rights,  privileges, 
franchises,  concessions,"  and  other  property  of  the  New  Panama 
Canal  Company.  It  was,  of  course,  well  known  to  both  Governments 
that  the  company  under  the  terms  of  the  concession  of  1878  could  not 
transfer  to  the  United  States  "  its  rights,  privileges,  franchises,  and 
concessions  "  without  the  consent  of  Colombia.  Therefore  the  Gov- 
ernment of  the  United  States  before  entering  upon  any  dealings  with 
the  New  Panama  Canal  Company  negotiated  and  concluded  the  con- 
vention with  Colombia.     The  first  article  of  this  convention  provides : 

The  Government  of  Colombia  authorizes  the  New  Panama  Canal  Company  to 
sell  and  transfer  to  the  United  States  its  rights,  privileges,  properties,  and  con- 
cessions, as  well  as  the  Panama  railroad  and  all  the  shares  or  part  of  the  shares 
of  that  company. 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA  CANAL.  497 

The  authorization  thus  given,  in  clear  and ,  unequivocal  terms, 
covers  expressly  the  ,;  rights,  privileges,  *  *  *  and  concessions  " 
of  the  company,  as  well  as  its  other  property. 

Some  time  after  the  convention  was  signed  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  learned,  to  its  utter  surprise,  that  the  Government  of 
Colombia  was  taking  with  the  canal  company  the  position  that  a  fur- 
ther permission,  in  addition  to  that  contained  in  the  convention,  was 
necessary  to  the  transfer  of  its  concessions  and  those  of  the  Panama 
Railroad  Company,  respectively,  to  the  United  States,  and  that,  as  a 
preliminary  to  this  permission,  the  companies  must  enter  into  agree- 
ments with  Colombia  for  the  cancellation  of  all  her  obligations  to 
either  of  them  under  the  concession.  This  proceeding  seemed  all  the 
more  singular  in  the  light  of  the  negotiations  between  the  two  Gov- 
ernments. (^The  terms  in  which  the  convention  authorized  the  New 
Panama  Canal  Company  to  sell  and  transfer  its  "  rights,  privileges, 
properties,  and  concessions  "  to  the  United  States  were  the  same  as 
those  embodied  in  the  original  draft  of  a  treaty  presented  to  this 
Government  by  the  Colombian  minister  on  March  31,  1902.  9 

No  change  in  this  particular  was  ever  suggested  by  Colombia,  in  all 
the  discussions  that  followed,  until  November  11,  1902.  On  that  day 
the  Colombian  minister  presented  a  memorandum  in  which  it  was 
proposed  that  the  authorization  should  be  so  modified  that  "  the  per- 
mission accorded  by  Colombia  to  the  canal  and  the  railroad  companies 
to  transfer  their  rights  to  the  United  States  "  should  "  be  regulated 
by  a  previous  special  arrangement  entered  into  by  Colombia."  To 
this  proposal  this  department  answered  that  "  the  United  States  con- 
siders this  suggestion  wholly  inadmissible."  The  proposition  was 
then  abandoned  by  Colombia,  and  the  convention  was  nearly  three 
months  later  signed  without  any  modification  of  the  absolute  au- 
thorization to  sell. 

The  notices  actually  sent  to  the  companies  went,  however,  even 
further  than  the  rejected  and  abandoned  proposal  presented  by  the 
Colombian  minister,  since  they  required  the  companies  to  cancel  all 
obligations  of  Colombia  to  them,  and  thus  to  destroy  the  rights,  privi- 
leges, and  concessions  which  she  had  by  the  convention  solemnly 
authorized  the  canal  company  to  sell  and  transfer  to  the  United 
States.  The  whole  superstructure  so  laboriously  reared  was  thus 
threatened  with  destruction  by  the  removal  of  one  of  its  foundation 
stones. 

It  was  against  this  act  of  the  Colombian  Government  itself  that  the 
remonstrance  made  by  the  American  minister,  Mr.  Beaupre,  by  in- 
struction of  his  Government,  on  the  24th  of  April  last,  was  presented. 
Great  stress  is  laid  upon  this  remonstrance  in  Colombia's  "  statement 
of  grievances,"  as  the  first  of  a  series  of  three  diplomatic  representa- 
tions which,  by  assuming  to  deny  to  the  Colombian  Congress  the 
exercise  of  its  constitutional  functions,  affronted  that  body  and  led 
the  Colombian  Senate  to  reject  the  convention.  Unfortunately  for 
this  supposition,  the  Colombian  Congress  was  not  in  session.  It  had 
not  then  been  convoked ;  nor  did  it  meet  until  the  20th  of  June.  The 
representation  was  made  solely  with  a  view  to  recall  to  the  Colombian 
Government  the  terms  of  the  agreement  which  it  had  itself  concluded, 
but  of  which  it  seemed  to  have  become  oblivious.  The  second  repre- 
sentation was  made,  as  you  state,  on  the  18th  of  June,  two  days  before 

42112— S.  Doc.  474,  63-2 32 


498  DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

Congress  met,  but  the  cabled  instruction  under  which  it  was  made 
was  sent  by  this  Government  on  the  9th  of  June.  The  third  was 
made  on  the  5th  of  August,  while  the  Congress  was  in  session.  Its 
obvious  purpose  was,  if  possible,  to  exhibit  the  situation  in  its  true 
light. 

The  department  would  here  gladly  end  its  ricital  of  the  course  of 
the  Colombian  Government  with  what  has  already  been  exhibited, 
but  the  circumstances  do  not  permit  it  to  do  so.  As  the  "  statement 
of  grievances  "  presented  on  behalf  of  Colombia  is  founded  upon  the 
tacit  assumption  that  her  present  plight  is  due  solely  to  wrongs  com- 
mitted by  this  Government,  it  is  necessary  that  the  facts  should  be 
disclosed. 

The  violation  by  the  Colombian  Government,  long  before  the  Con- 
gress assembled,  of  its  agreement  to  the  sale  and  transfer  to  the 
United  States  of  the  rights  and  concessions  of  the  canal  and  railway 
companies  was  not  the  only  act  by  which  it  manifested  its  purpose  to 
repudiate  its  own  engagements.  For  some  time  after  the  convention 
was  signed,  its  terms  appeared  to  be  as  satisfactory  to  the  people  of 
Colombia  as  they  seemingly  had  been  to  the  Colombian  Government. 

This  state  of  affairs  continued  until  General  Fernandez,  in  charge 
of  the  ministry  of  finance,  issued,  more  than  a  month  before  the  Con- 
gress was  convoked  and  more  than  two  months  before  it  met,  a  circu- 
lar to  the  Bogota  press,  which,  as  Mr.  Beaupre  reported,  "  had  sud- 
denly sprung  into  existence,"  inviting  discussion  of  the  convention. 
The  circular  in  substance  stated,  according  to  Mr.  Beaupre's  report, 
that  the  Government  "  had  no  preconceived  wishes  for  or  against  the 
measure ;  "  that  it  was  "  for  Congress  to  decide."  and  that  Congress 
would  be  largely  guided  by  "  public  opinion."  In  view  of  what  the 
Government  had  already  done,  it  is  not  strange  that  this  invitation  to 
discussion  was  followed  by  violent  attacks  upon  the  convention,  ac- 
companied by  the  most  extravagant  speculations  as  to  the  gains  which 
Colombia  might  possibly  derive  from  its  rejection.  No  thought  what- 
ever seems  to  have  been  taken  of  the  incalculable  benefits  that  would 
accrue  to  Colombia  as  the  direct  and  necessary  result  of  the  construc- 
tion of  the  canal.  Only  the  immediate  possibilities,  which  the  re- 
sources of  this  Government  and  the  situation  of  the  canal  company 
served  to  suggest,  seem  to  have  been  taken  into  account. 

It  is  entirely  impossible  [said  Mr.  Beaupre,  writing  on  May  4,  1903]  to  con- 
vince these  people  that  the  Nicaragua  route  was  ever  seriously  considered  by  the 
United  States;  that  the  negotiations  concerning  it  had  any  other  motive  than 
the  squeezing  of  an  advantageous  bargain  out  of  Colombia  ;  nor  that  any  other 
than  the  Panama  route  will  lie  selected.  *  *  *  Therefore,  it  is  contended, 
and  generally  believed,  that  there  is  no  immediate  necessity  of  confirming  the 
Hay-Herran  convention ;  that  the  negotiations  can  be  safely  prolonged,  in  the 
end  securing  very  much  better  terms  for  Colombia.  The  public  discussion  is 
largely  along  the*  lines  of  the  loss  of  national  honor  by  the  surrender  of  sov- 
ereignty; *  *  *  private  discussion,  which  perhaps  more  clearly  reflects  the 
real  situation,  is  to  the  effect  that  the  price  is  inadequate. 

That  Mr.  Beaupre's  summary  of  the  situation — a  situation  which 
seems  logically  to  have  followed  from  the  Government's  own  meas- 
ures— was  correct  is  amply  demonstrated  in  the  sequel.  The  depart- 
ment deems  it  unnecessary  to  enter  into  any  argument  upon  the  ques- 
tion raised  at  Bogota  as  to  Colombia's  "  sovereignty."  The  conven- 
tion speaks  for  itself,  and  its  provisions  for  the  acknowledgment  and 
assurance  of  Colombia's  sovereignty  have   already  been  set  forth. 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  499 

The  explanations  put  forward  in  Colombia's  "  statement  of  griev- 
ances "  merely  repeat  the  pleas  devised  at  the  Colombian  capital. 
The  sudden  discovery  that  the  terms  of  the  convention,  as  proposed 
and  signed  by  the  Colombian  Government,  involved  a  violation  of  the 
Colombian  constitution,  because  it  required  a  cession  to  the  United 
States  of  the  "  sovereignty  "  which  is  expressly  recognized  and  con- 
firmed, could  be  received  by  this  Government  only  with  the  utmost 
surprise.  Nevertheless,  the  Colombian  Senate  unanimously  rejected 
the  convention. 

This  fact  was  communicated  to  the  department  by  Doctor  Herran 
on  the  22d  of  August  last,  by  means  of  a  copy  of  a  cablegram  from 
his  Government.  In  that  telegram  the  "  impairment "  of  Colombian 
"  sovereignty  "  was  mentioned  as  one  of  the  "  reasons  advanced  in 
debate  "  for  the  Senate's  action;  but  joined  with  it  there  was  another 
reason,  with  which  the  department  had  long  been  familiar,  namely, 
the  "  absence  "  of  a  "  previous  agreement "  of  the  companies  with  the 
Colombian  Government  for  the  transfer  of  their  privileges.  To  these 
reasons  there  was  added  a  reference  to  the  representations  made  by 
Mr.  Beaupre ;  but  it  was  said  to  be  "  probable  "  that  the  Colombian 
Congress  would  "  provide  bases  "  for  "  reopening  negotiations." 

No  such  action,  however,  was  taken  by  the  Colombian  Congress. 
On  the  contrary,  by  a  report  of  the  majority  of  the  Panama  Canal 
committee,  read  in  the  Colombian  Senate  on  the  14th  of  October  last,  it 
was  recommended  that  a  bill  which  had  been  introduced  to  authorize 
the  Government  to  enter  upon  new  negotiations  should  be  "  indefi- 
nitely postponed."  The  reason  for  this  recommendation  is  disclosed 
in  the  same  report.  By  a  treaty  concluded  April  4,  1893,  the  original 
concession  granted  to  the  Panama  Canal  Companv  was  extended  until 
December  31,  1904. 

By  a  legislative  act  in  1900  a  new  extension  was  made  till  October 
31,  1910;  but  the  report,  adopting  a  suggestion  which  had  been  put 
forward  in  the  press,  raises  a  question  as  to  whether  this  legislative 
extension  was  valid,  and  adds  that  if  it  was  not  valid  the  aspect  of 
the  question  would  be  entirely  changed  in  consequence  of  the  fact  that 
when  a  year  later  the  Colombian  Congress  should  meet  in  ordinary 
session  the  extension  of  1893  would  have  "  expired  and  every  privi- 
lege with  it."  In  that  case,  the  report  goes  on  to  say,  the  Kepublic 
would  become  the  "  possessor  and  owner,  without  any  need  of  a  pre- 
vious judicial  decision  and  without  any  indemnity,  of  the  canal  itself 
and  of  the  adjuncts  that  belong  to  it,"  and  would  not  only  be  able  to 
"contract  *  *  *  without  any  impediments."  but  would  be  in  more 
clear,  more  definite,  and  more  advantageous  possession,  both  legally 
and  materially. 

This  programme,  if  not  expressly,  was  at  least  tacitly,  adopted  by 
the  Colombian  Congress,  which  adjourned  on  the  31st  of  October 
without  providing  any  bases  for  the  reopening  of  negotiations.  It 
was  a  scheme  to  which  this  Government  could  not  possibly  have  be- 
come a  party.  Of  this  fact  the  Colombian  Government  was  duly  noti- 
filed  when  the  first  intimation  of  its  purpose  was.  long  anterior  to  the 
assembling  of  the  Congress,  first  disclosed.  The  Colombian  Govern- 
ment was  expressly  informed  that  such  action  on  its  part,  or  on  that 
of  the  companies,  would  be  inconsistent  with  the  agreements  already 
made  between  the  United  States  and  the  canal  company  with  the  iiet 


500  DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

of  June  28,  190*2,  under  the  authority  of  which  the  convention  was 
made,  and  with  the  express  terms  of  the  convention  itself.  It  was, 
under  the  circumstances,  equivalent  to  a  refusal  of  all  negotiation 
with  this  Government. 

Under  these  circumstances  it  was  the  intention  of  the  President  be- 
fore further  action  to  submit  the  matter  to  Congress,  which  was  then 
soon  to  assemble.  The  situation,  however,  was  presently  changed. 
If  the  Government  at  Bogota,  as  the  "  statement  of  grievances  "  as- 
sures us,  "  fell  into  error  "  in  supposing  that  the  only  consequence  of 
its  rejection  of  the  convention  would  be  the  abandonment  of  the  Pan- 
ama route  by  this  Government,  its  blindness  to  a  situation  at  home 
that  was  attracting  the  attention  of  the  world  can  only  be  imputed  to 
itself.  Reports  of  impending  trouble,  as  the  result  of  what  was  go- 
ing on  at  Bogota,  were  rife. 

Advices  came  to  this  Government,  not  only  through  the  press  but 
also  through  its  own  officials,  of  the  existence  of  dangerous  conditions 
on  the  Isthmus,  as  well  as  in  the  adjacent  States  whose  interests  were 
menaced.  Disorders  in  that  quarter  were  not  new.  In  the  summer 
of  1902.  as  well  as  in  that  of  1901,  this  Government  had  been  obliged 
by  its  forces  to  maintain  order  on  the  transit  route,  and  its  took 
steps,  as  it  had  done  on  previous  occasions,  to  perform  a  similar  duty 
should  the  necessity  arise.  The  form  the  trouble  might  take  could 
not  be  foreseen,  but  it  was  important  to  guard  against  any  destruc- 
tive effects. 

The  reasonableness  of  these  precautions  soon  became  evident.  The 
people  of  Panama  rose  against  an  act  of  the  Government  at  Bogota 
that  threatened  their  most  vital  interests  with  destruction  and  the 
interests  of  the  whole  world  with  grave  injury.  The  movement  as- 
sumed the  form  of  a  declaration  of  independence.  The  avowed 
object  of  this  momentous  step  was  to  secure  the  construction  of  the 
interoceanic  canal.  It  was  inspired  by  the  desire  of  the  people  at 
once  to  safeguard  their  own  interests  and  at  the  same  time  to  assure 
the  dedication  of  the  Isthmus  to  the  use  for  which  Providence  seemed 
to  have  designed  it. 

The  situation  thus  suddenly  created,  as  the  direct  and  immediate 
consequence  of  the  act  of  the  Government  at  Bogota,  was.  as  has 
already  been  observed,  one  that  deeply  concerned  not  only  this  Gov- 
ernment but  the  whole  civilized  world;  but  the  interests  of  the  United 
States  were  especially  implicated  by  reason  of  the  treat}'  of  1846  with 
New  Granada.  This  treaty  is  frequently  cited  in  Colombia's  "  state- 
ment of  grievances,"  and  the  United  States  is  repeatedly  charged  with 
having  violated  it.  But,  while  its  terms  are  employed  as  the  basis  of 
every  accusation  against  this  Government  that  they  can  with  any 
plausibility  be  made  to  support,  its  great  and  fundamental  design,  the 
disregard  of  which  by  Colombia  produced  the  revolution  on  the  Isth- 
mus, is  whollv  passed  over  and  neglected.  The  department  is  obliged 
to  remedy  this  defect. 

In  speaking  of  the  treaty  of  1816  both  Governments  have  in  mind 
the  thirty-fifth  article,  which  forms  in  itself  a  special  and  distinctive 
international  engagement.     By  this  article— 

the  Government  of  New  Granada  guarantees  to  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  that  the  right  of  way  or  transit  across  the  Isthmus  of  Panama  upon  any 
modes  of  communication  that  uow  exist,  or  that  may  he  hereafter  constructed, 
shall  be  free  and  open  to  the  Government  and  citizens  of  the  United  States. 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  501 

In  return — 

the  United  States  guarantees  positively  and  efficaciously  to  New  Granada 
*  *  *  the  perfect  neutrality  of  the  before-mentioned  Isthmus,  with  the 
view  that  the  free  transit  from  the  one  to  the  other  sea  may  not  be  interrupted 
or  embarrassed. 

And— 

in  consequence  the  United  States  also  guarantee,  in  the  same  manner,  the  rights 
of  sovereignty  and  property  which  New  Granada  has  and  possesses  over  the 
said  territory. 

The  circumstances  in  which  these  engagements  originated  are  mat- 
ters of  history.  For  some  years  exceptional  efforts  had  been  put  forth 
to  secure  the  construction  of  an  interoceanic  canal,  and  it  was  com- 
monly believed  that  certain  European  Governments,  and  particularly 
that  of  Great  Britain,  were  seeking  to  obtain  control  of  the  transit 
routes.  That  no  capitalist  could  be  found  to  engage  in  the  construc- 
tion of  a  canal  without  some  greater  security  for  their  investments 
than  the  feeble  and  irregular  local  governments  could  afford  was 
universally  admitted.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  it  was  apprehended 
that  the  introduction  of  European  monarchical  interests  would  prove 
to  be  but  the  beginning  of  a  process  of  colonization  that  would  in  the 
end  be  fatal  to  the  cause  of  republican  government. 

In  this  predicament  all  eyes  were  turned  to  the  United  States. 
The  first  result  was  the  conclusion  of  the  treaty  of  1846  with  New 
Granada.  Its  primary  object  was  to  assure  the  dedication  of  the 
Isthmus  to  purposes  of  interoceanic  transits,  and  above  all  to  the  con- 
struction of  an  interoceanic  canal.  President  Polk,  in  submitting  it 
to  the  Senate,  assigned  as  the  chief  reason  for  its  ratification  that  a 
passage  through  the  Isthmus — 

would  relieve  us  from  a  long  and  dangerous  navigation  of  more  than  nine 
thousand  miles  around  Cape  Horn,  and  render  our  communication  with  our 
own  possessions  on  the  northwest  coast  of  America  comparatively  easy  and 
speedy. 

It  is  true  that  the  treaty  did  not  require  Colombia  to  permit  such  a 
passage  to  be  constructed;  but  such  an  obligation  was  so  obviously 
implied  that  it  was  unnecessary  to  express  it. 

Apart  from  the  adaptation  of  the  Isthmus  to  interoceanic  transit, 
and  its  use  for  that  purpose,  there  existed,  as  between  the  United 
States  and  New  Granada,  no  common  reason  for  the  treaty's  existence. 
This  has  always  been  well  understood  by  both  Governments.  In  a 
note  of  the  Colombian  charge  d'affaires  at  Washington,  of  January  3, 
1899,  commending  the  Panama  enterprise  to  the  good  will  of  this 
Government,  reference  is  made  to  the  advantages  which  the  United 
States  "  would  derive  from  the  Panama  Canal,  when  studied  in  the 
light  of  that  international  agreement,"  the  treaty  of  1848.  The  same 
treaty  was  expressly  incorporated  into  and  perpetuated  in  the  Hay- 
Herran  convention.  And  it  may  be  added  that  the  Panama  Canal,  so 
far  as  it  has  progressed,  was  built  under  the  protection  of  the  same 
engagement. 

The  guaranty  by  the  United  States  of  the  neutrality  of  the  Isthmus, 
and  of  the  sovereignty  and  property  of  New  Granada  thereover,  was 
given  for  the  conservation  of  precisely  this  purpose.  To  this  end  the 
United  States  undertook  to  protect  the  sovereignty  of  the  Isthmus 
from  attacks  by  foreign  powers.    The  powers  primarily  in  view  were 


/ 


502  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

those  of  Europe,  but  the  treaty  made  no  discriminations.  The  theory 
on  which  the  "  statement  of  grievances  "  proceeds,  that  the  treaty 
obliged  the  Government  of  the  United  States  to  protect  the  Govern- 
ment of  New  Granada  against  domestic  insurrection  or  its  conse- 
quences, finds  no  support  in  the  record,  and  is  in  its  nature  inad- 
missible. 

Only  a  few  years  before  the  treaty  was  made  the  original  Republic 
of  Colombia  was  dissolved  into  the  States  of  Venezuela,  Ecuador,  and 
New  Granada,  and  since  the  treaty  was  made  the  Republic  of  New 
Granada  has  been  successively  transformed  into  the  United  States  of 
Colombia  and  the  present  Republic  of  Colombia.  With  these  internal 
changes  the  Government  of  the  United  States  was  not  permitted  to 
concern  itself,  so  far  as  they  did  not  affect  its  treaty  rights  and  obli- 
gations. Indeed,  it  is  not  to  be  imagined  that  New  Granada  desired 
or  that  the  United  States  would  have  been  willing  to  take  part  in  the 
former's  internal  revolutions. 

That  the  United  States  has  faithfully  borne,  during  the  long  period 
since  the  treaty  was  concluded,  the  full  burden  of  its  responsibilities 
does  not  admit  of  question. 

A  principal  object  of  New  Granada  [said  Mr.  Fish,  in  a  note  to  the  Colombian 
minister  of  May  27,  1871]  in  entering  into  the  treaty  is  understood  to  have  been 
to  maintain  her  sovereignty  over  the  Isthmus  of  Panama  against  any  attack 
from  abi'oad.  That  object  has  been  fully  accomplished.  No  such  attack  has 
taken  place,  though  this  department  has  reason  to  believe  that  one  has  upon 
several  occasions  been  threatened,  but  has  been  averted  by  warning  from  this 
Government  as  to  its  obligations  under  the  treaty. 

In  January,  1885,  when  Colombia  appealed  to  the  United  States  in 
the  hope  of  averting  the  hostilities  with  which  she  was  believed  to  be 
threatened  on  account  of  the  Italian  subject,  Cerruti,  this  Government 
caused  an  intimation  to  be  made  of  the  serious  concern  which  it — 

could  not  but  feel  were  a  European  power  to  resort  to  force  against  a  sister  re- 
public of  this  hemisphere  as  to  the  sovereign  and  uninterrupted  use  of  a  part  of 
whose  territory  we  are  guarantors,  under  the  solemn  faith  of  a  treaty. 

Such  is  the  spirit  in  which  the  United  States  has  on  various  occa- 
sions discharged  its  obligations. 

The  United  States  has  done  more  than  this.  It  has  assumed  and 
discharged,  as  if  primarily  responsible,  duties  which  in  the  first  in- 
stance rested  on  Colombia.  According  to  the  language  of  the  treaty, 
the  right  of  the  Government  and  people  of  the  United  States  to  a  free 
and  open  transit  across  the  Isthmus  was  guaranteed  by  New  Granada ; 
but  the  United  States  has  been  able  to  secure  the  benefits  of  it  only 
by  its  own  exertions;  and  in  only  one  instance,  and  that  as  far  back 
as  1857,  has  it  been  able  to  obtain  from  Colombia  any  compensation 
for  the  injuries  and  losses  resulting  from  her  failure  to  perform  her 
obligation.  The  department  deems  it  unnecessary  now  to  enter  into 
particulars,  but  is  abundantly  able  to  furnish  them. 

Meanwhile,  the  great  design  of  the  treaty  of  1846  remained  unful- 
filled; and  in  the  end  it  became  apparent,  as  has  heretofore  been 
shown,  that  it  could  be  fulfilled  only  by  the  construction  of  a  canal  by 
the  Government  of  the  United  States.  By  reason  of  the  action  of  the 
Government  at  Bogota  in  repudiating  the  Hay-Herran  convention, 
and  of  the  views  and  intentions  disclosed  in  connection  with  that 
repudiation,  the  Government  was  confronted,  when  the  revolution  at 
Panama  took  place,  with  the  alternative  of  either  abandoning  the 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY    OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  503 

chief  benefit  which  it  expected  and  was  entitled  to  derive  from  the 
treaty  of  1846,  or  of  resorting  to  measures  the  necessity  of  which  it 
could  contemplate  only  with  regret. 

/By  the  declaration  of  independence  of  the  Republic  of  Panama  a 
new  situation  was  created.  On  the  one  hand  stood  the  Government  of 
Colombia  invoking  in  the  name  of  the  treaty  of  1846  the  aid  of  this 
Government  in  its  efforts  to  suppress  the  revolution ;  on  the  other  hand 
stood  the  Republic  of  Panama  that  had  come  into  being  in  order  that 
the  great  design  of  that  treaty  might  not  be  forever  frustrated,  but 
might  be  fulfilled.  The  Isthmus  was  threatened  with  desolation  by 
another  civil  war,  nor  were  the  rights  and  interests  of  the  United 
States  alone  at  stake,  the  interests  of  the  whole  civilized  world  were 
involved.  The  Republic  of  Panama  stood  for  those  interests ;  the  Gov- 
ernment of  Colombia  opposed  them.  Compelled  to  choose  between 
these  two  alternatives,  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  in  no 
wise  responsible  for  the  situation  that  had  arisen,  did  not  hesitate. 
It  recognized  the  independence  of  the  Republic  of  Panama,  and  upon 
its  judgment  and  action  in  the  emergency  the  powers  of  the  world 
have  set  the  seal  of  their  approval.  / 

In  recognizing  the  independence  oi  the  Republic  of  Panama  the 
United  States  necessarily  assumed  toward  that  Republic  the  obliga- 
tions of  the  treaty  of  1846.  Intended,  as  the  treaty  was,  to  assure  the 
protection  of  the  sovereign  of  the  Isthmus,  whether  the  government 
of  that  sovereign  ruled  from  Bogota  or  from  Panama,  the  Republic  of 
Panama,  as  the  successor  in  sovereignty  of  Colombia,  became  entitled 
to  the  rights  and  subject  to  the  obligations  of  the  treaty. 

The  treaty  was  one  which  in  its  nature  survived  the  separation  of 
Panama  from  Colombia.  "  Treaties  of  alliance,  of  guarantee,  or  of 
commerce  are  not,"  says  Hall,  "  binding  upon  a  new  state  formed  by 
separation ;"  but  the  new  state  "  is  saddled  with  local  obligations,  such 
as  that  to  regulate  the  channel  of  a  river,  or  to  levy  no  more  than  cer- 
tain dues  along  its  course."  (International  Law,  4th  edition,  p.  98.) 
To  the  same  effect,  it  is  laid  down  by  Rivier  "  that  treaties  relating  to 
boundaries,  to  water  courses,  and  to  ways  of  communication,"  consti- 
tute obligations  which  are  connected  with  the  territory  and  follow  it 
through  the  mutations  of  national  ownership.  (Principes  du  Droit 
des  Gens,  I,  72-73.)  This  Government,  therefore,  does  not  perceive 
that,  in  discharging  in  favor  of  the  present  sovereign  of  the  Isthmus 
its  duties  under  the  treaty  of  1846,  it  is  in  any  way  violating  or  failing 
in  the  performance  of  its  legal  duties. 

Under  all  the  circumstances  the  department  is  unable  to  regard  the 
complaints  of  Colombia  against  this  Government,  set  forth  in  the 
"  Statement  of  grievances,"  as  having  any  valid  foundation.  The 
responsibility  lies  at  Colombia's  own  door  rather  than  at  that  of 
the  United  States.  This  Government,  however,  recognizes  the  fact 
that  Colombia  has,  as  she  affirms,  suffered  an  appreciable  loss.  This 
Government  has  no  desire  to  increase  or  accentuate  her  misfortunes, 
but  is  willing  to  do  all  that  lies  in  its  power  to  ameliorate  her  lot. 
The  Government  of  the  United  States,  in  common  with  the  whole  civ- 
ilized world,  shares  in  a  sentiment  of  sorrow  over  the  unfortunate 
conditions  which  have  long  existed  in  the  Republic  of  Colombia  by 
reason  of  the  factional  and  fratricidal  wars  which  have  desolated  her 
fields,  ruined  her  industries,  and  impoverished  her  people. 


504  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

Entertaining  these  feelings,  the  Government  of  the  United  States 
would  gladly  exercise  its  good  offices  with  the  Republic  of  Panama, 
with  a  view  to  bring  about  some  arrangement  on  a  fair  and  equitable 
basis.  For  the  acceptance  of  your  proposal  of  a  resort  to  The  Hague 
tribunal,  this  Government  perceives  no  occasion.  Indeed,  the  ques- 
tions presented  in  your  "  statement  of  grievances ?'  are  of  a  political 
nature,  such  as  nations  of  even  the  most  advanced  ideas  as  to  interna- 
tional arbitration  have  not  proposed  to  deal  with  by  that  process. 
Questions  of  foreign  policy  and  of  the  recognition  or  nonrecognition 
of  foreign  states  are  of  a  purely  political  nature,  and  do  not  fall 
within  the  domain  of  judicial  decision;  and  upon  these  questions  this 
Government  has  in  the  present  paper  defined  its  position. 

But  there  may  be,  no  doubt,  other  questions  which  may  form  a  proper 
subject  of  negotiation;  among  them,  for  instance,  the  establishment  of 
diplomatic  relations  between  the  Republics  of  Colombia  and  Panama, 
the  delimitation  of  their  respective  boundaries,  the  possible  appor- 
tionment of  their  mutual  pecuniary  liabilities.  If  the  Government 
of  Colombia  will  take  these  matters  up,  with  any  others  which  they 
think  may  require  discussion,  and  will  put  their  suggestions  in  regard 
to  them  in  a  definite  and  concrete  form,  they  will  receive  at  the  hands 
of  this  Government  the  most  careful  consideration,  with  a  view  to 
bringing  them,  in  the  exercise  of  good  offices,  to  the  attention  of  the 
Government  of  Panama. 

Accept,  sir,  the  renewed  assurances  of  my  highest  consideration. 

John  Hay. 


[Translation.] 

General  Reyes  to  Mr.  Hay. 

Legation  or  Colombia 

on  Special  Mission, 
Washington,  January  6, 190Jf. 

Mr.  Secretary:  I  have  received  the  note  which  your  excellency 
did  me  the  honor  to  address  to  me  under  date  of  the  30th  of  December 
last,  in  answer  to  mine  of  the  29th  of  the  same  month.  I  transmitted 
it  by  cable  to  my  Government  and  have  received  from  it  instructions 
to  make  to  your  excellency's  Government  the  following  declarations: 

First,  That  the  said  note  of  the  30th  of  December  from  your  excel- 
lency is  regarded  by  my  Government  as  an  intimation  that  the  Colom- 
bian forces  will  be  attacked  by  those  of  the  United  States  on  their 
entering  the  territory  of  Panama  for  the  purpose  of  subduing  the 
rebellion,  and  that  for  that  reason,  and  owing  to  its  inability  to  cope 
with  the  powerful  American  squadron  that  watches  over  the  coasts  of 
the  Isthmus  of  Panama,  it  holds  the  Government  of  the  United  States 
responsible  for  all  damages  caused  to  it  by  the  loss  of  that  national 
territory. 

Second.  That  since  the  3d  of  November  last  the  revolution  of 
Panama  would  have  yielded,  or  would  not  have  taken  place,  if  the 
American  sailors  and  the  agents  of  the  Panama  Canal  had  not  pre- 
vented the  Colombian  forces  from  proceeding  on  their  march  toward 
Panama,  and  that  I,  as  commander  in  chief  of  the  army  of  Colombia, 
would  have  succeeded  in  suppressing  the  revolution  of  Panama  as 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  505 

early  as  the  20th  of  the  same  month  if  Admiral  Coghlan  had  not 
notified  me  in  an  official  note  that  he  had  orders  from  his  Government 
to  prevent  the  landing  of  Colombian  forces  throughout  the  territory 
of  the  Isthmus. 

Third.  That  the  charges  officially  made  again  the  Government  and 
Senate  of  Colombia  that  it  was  opposed  to  the  work  of  the  Panama 
Canal,  and  that  its  purpose  was  to  obtain  a  greater  amount  of  money 
from  the  American  Government  and  to  recover  the  concession  of  the 
French  company  are  unfair  and  groundless,  and  the  proof  of  this  as- 
sertion is  that  the  Colombian  Senate  refused  to  ratify  the  Hay- 
Herran  treaty,  not  because  a  greater  sum  of  money  was  demanded, 
but  because  the  treaty  was  contrary  to  the  constitution  of  the  country, 
which  prohibits  the  cession  of  sovereignty  over  national  territory; 
but  the  necessity  of  the  canal  is  so  well  recognized  in  Colombia  that 
it  was  proposed,  in  the  discussion  of  the  Senate,  to  amend  the  consti- 
tution in  order  to  remove  the  constitutional  difficulty,  and  the  min- 
ister of  foreign  relations,  after  the  sessions  of  Congress  were  closed, 
directed  the  charge  d'affaires,  Doctor  Herran,  to  advise  the  Govern- 
ment of  your  excellency  that  that  of  Colombia  was  ready  to  enter 
into  renewed  negotiations  for  a  canal  convention,  and  that  it  pur- 
posed to  remove  the  existing  constitutional  difficulties.  The  charge 
made  against  the  Government  of  Colombia  that  it  purposed  to  can- 
cel the  concession  of  the  French  company  vanishes  as  soon  as  it  be 
known  that  under  the  latest  extension  granted  to  it  by  Colombia  the 
said  concession  would  not  lapse  until  the  year  1910. 

Fourth.  That  the  failure  of  the  Colombian  Senate  to  ratify  the 
Hay-Herran  treaty,  for  the  reasons  above  stated,  can  not  be  regarded 
as  an  act  of  discourtesy  or  unfriendliness,  as  the  minister  of  foreign 
relations  of  Colombia,  Senor  Rico,  told  the  minister  of  the  United 
States,  Mr.  Beaupre,  at  Bogota,  because  a  treaty  prior  to  its  ratifica- 
tion is  nothing  but  a  project  which,  according  to  the  laws  of  nations, 
neither  confers  rights  nor  imposes  obligations,  and  therefore  its  re- 
jection or  delay  in  its  ratification  gives  no  ground  for  the  adoption 
of  measures  tending  to  alter  the  relations  of  friendship  between  the 
two  countries.  If  it  were  not  so,  the  mere  act  of  preparing  a  public 
treaty  would  be  an  occasion  for  serious  danger  instead  of  an  element 
of  peace  and  progress,  which  is  the  predicament  in  which  Colombia 
finds  herself  at  present,  owing  to  her  weakness. 

Fifth.  That  while  the  treaty  of  1846  gives  to  the  Government  of 
the  United  States  the  right  to  maintain  and  protect  the  free  transit 
of  the  Isthmus  at  the  request  of  Colombia  and  when  the  latter  is 
unable  to  do  so,  it  places  it  under  the  obligation  of  enforcing  the  re- 
spect of  Colombia's  sovereignty  over  the  territory  of  the  Isthmus 
and  that  the  American  Government  has  now  not  only  failed  to  dis- 
charge that  duty,  but  has  prevented  the  Colombian  forces  from  recov- 
ering the  national  sovereignty  on  the  Isthmus,  and  thus  the  said 
treaty  of  1846  being  in  full  force,  Colombia  holds  that  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  United  States  has  no  other  reason  than  that  of  its  own 
strength  and  of  Colombia's  weakness  for  interpreting  and  applying 
it  in  the  manner  it  has ;  that  is  to  say,  for  availing  itself  of  the  ad- 
vantages and  rights  conferred  by  the  treaty,  and  refusing  to  fulfill 
the  obligations  imposed  thereby. 

Sixth.  That  it  is  known,  from  sworn  statements,  that  the  garrisons 
of  Panama  and  Colon  were  bought  with  gold  brought  from  the 


506  DIPLOMATIC    HISTOKY   OF   THE  PANAMA   CANAL. 

United  States,  toward  the  end  of  October,  by  the  Panama  revolu- 
tionists. 

Seventh.  That  if  these  revolutionists  had  not  relied,  and  did  not 
now  rely,  on  the  armed  protection  of  the  United  States,  whose  pow- 
erful squadrons  on  both  the  Pacific  and  Atlantic  Oceans  have  pre- 
vented, and  are  preventing,  since  the  3d  of  November,  the  Colombian 
army  from  landing  its  forces,  the  Panama  revolution  would  have 
been  foiled  by  Colombia  in  a  few  hours. 

Eighth.  That  the  Government  of  Colombia,  holding  a  perfect  right 
that  the  cession  of  the  compact  with  the  French  canal  company  be 
not  effected  without  its  express  consent,  has  instituted  an  action 
against  the  said  company  before  the  French  courts  and  asked  that  the 
contract  made  with  the  American  Government  be  declared  null  and 
void. 

Ninth.  That  on  the  grounds  above  stated,  the  Government  of 
Colombia  believes  that  it  has  been  despoiled  by  that  of  the  United 
States  of  its  rights  and  sovereignty  on  the  Isthmus  of  Panama,  and 
not  being  possessed  of  the  material  strength  sufficient  to  prevent  this 
by  the  means  of  arms  (although  it  does  not  forego  this  method,  which 
it  will  use  to  the  best  of  its  ability),  solemnly  declares  to  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  United  States : 

First.  That  the  Government  of  the  United  States  is  responsible  to 
that  of  Colombia  for  the  dismemberment  that  has  been  made  of  its 
territory  by  the  separation  of  Panama,  by  reason  of  the  attitude  that 
the  said  Government  assumed  there  as  soon  as  the  revolution  of  the 
3d  of  November  broke  out. 

Second.  That  the  contract  made  between  the  United  States  and  the 
French  canal  company  is  null,  since  it  lacks  the  consent  of  Colombia, 
and  the  latter  has  already  brought  suit  against  the  said  canal  com- 
pany before  the  French  courts  in  the  defense  of  its  interests. 

Third.  That  the  Government  of  Colombia  does  not  nor  will  it  ever 
relinquish  the  rights  it  possesses  over  the  territory  of  the  Isthmus  of 
which  it  is  now  despoiled  by  the  American  forces,  and  will  at  all  times 
claim  the  said  rights  and  try  to  vindicate  them  by  every  means  within 
its  reach,  and  that  for  that  reason  the  title  over  the  territory  of  the 
Isthmus  that  may  be  acquired  by  the  United  States  for  the  opening 
of  the  canal  is  void,  and  Colombia  reserves  to  herself  the  right  to 
claim  the  said  territory  at  any  time. 

Fourth.  That  if  the  work  of  the  Panama  Canal  is  undertaken  and 
carried  to  completion  in  disregard  and  trespass  of  the  rights  of  Co- 
lombia, the  latter  puts  it  on  record  that  she  was  denied  justice  by  the 
United  States ;  that  she  was  forcibly  despoiled  of  the  territory  of  the 
Isthmus  in  clear  violation  of  the  treaty  of  1846,  and  that  she  does  not 
relinquish  the  rights  she  possesses  over  the  said  territory,  and  holds 
the  United  States  responsible  for  the  damages  caused  to  her. 

Fifth.  That  Colombia,  earnestly  wishing  that  the  work  of  the  canal 
be  carried  into  effect,  not  only  because  it  suits  her  interest  but  also 
those  of  the  commerce  of  the  world,  is  disposed  to  enter  into  arrange- 
ments that  would  secure  for  the  United  States  the  execution  and  own- 
ership of  the  said  work  and  be  based  on  respect  for  her  honor  and 
rights. 

Sixth.  That  the  United  States  has  never  protected  Colombia  on  the 
Isthmus  of  Panama  against  foreign  invasion,  and  that  when  it  has 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  507 

intervened  to  prevent  the  interruption  of  the  traffic  it  has  been  in 
help,  or  be  it  at  the  suggestion  of  the  Government  of  Colombia.  In 
this  one  instance  it  did  so  on  its  own  initiative,  with  the  obvious  pur- 
pose of  protecting  the  secession  of  the  Isthmus.  The  guaranty  of 
neutrality,  if  it  were  privileged,  would  estop  the  sovereign  of  the 
land  from  maintaining  order,  which  is  contrary  to  the  fundamental 
principles  of  every  Government ;  and 

Seventh.  That  the  course  followed  by  the  American  Government  at 
Panama  at  the  time  when  Colombia  enjoyed  peace,  after  overcoming 
a  revolution  of  three  years'  duration,  which  left  her  exhausted,  is  in 
favor  of  an}'  rebellion,  but  not  of  the  maintenance  of  order,  which  is 
contrary  to  the  principles  and  antecedents  of  the  policy  of  this  great 
Nation  as  established  in  the  war  of  secession. 

As  the  treaty  with  Panama,  by  which  the  rights  of  Colombia  on  the 
Isthmus  are  plucked  from  her,  is  now  under  discussion  in  the  Ameri- 
can Senate,  I  respectfully  ask  of  your  excellency  that  my  note  of 
December  23  and  the  present  one  be  submitted  to  that  high  body,  so 
that  they  may  be  taken  into  account  in  the  discussion  of  the  rights  of 
Colombia. 

Inasmuch  as  official  charges  have  been  made  against  my  country  in 
the  documents  sent  to  the  Senate,  I  give  notice  to  your  excellency 
that,  in  reply  to  those  charges,  I  will  publish  my  note  of  the  23d  of 
December  and  the  present  one. 

I  beg  that  your  excellency  will  answer,  as  soon  as  possible,  my 
aforesaid  note  of  23d  of  December. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  sentiments  of  the  highest  consideration, 
Your  excellency's  obedient  servant, 

Rafael  Reyes. 


Mr.  Hay  to  General  Reyes. 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  January  9,  1904- 

Mr.  Minister:  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  receipt  of  your 
excellency's  note  of  the  6th  of  January,  1904,  which  I  have  read  with 
most  respectful  care. 

I  find  that  almost  all  the  propositions  brought  forward  in  this  com- 
munication have  been  considered  and  fully  answered  in  advance  in  the 
note  I  had  the  honor  to  address  you  on  the  5th  day  of  January.  I 
need,  therefore,  only  briefly  refer  to  a  few  matters  which  you  have 
brought  forward  for  the  first  time  in  your  note  of  the  6th  of  January. 
In  the  first  paragraph  of  your  note  you  state  that  your  Government 
regards  my  note  to  you  of  the  30th  of  December  as  an  intimation  that 
the  Colombian  forces  will  be  attacked  by  those  of  the  United  States 
on  their  entering  the  territory  of  Panama.  This  inference  of  yours  is 
wholly  gratuitous.  We  have  considered  it  our  duty  to  represent  to 
you  the  serious  responsibility  which  would  have  been  assumed  by 
Colombia  in  a  hostile  demonstration  of  the  character  you  mention, 
and,  at  the  same  time,  you  were  assured  that  the  United  States  Gov- 
ernment in  that  event  would  reserve  its  liberty  of  action  and  be 
governed  by  the  circumstances  of  the  case. 

Your  excellency  is  pleased  to  assert  that  if  this  Government  had 
not  intervened  to  preserve  order  on  the  Isthmus  you  would  have  been 
able  to  put  an  end  to  the  revolutionary  government  of  Panama  in  a 


508  DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA  CANAL. 

few  hours.  This  is  hardly  consistent  with  your  statement  that  the 
late  insurrection  in  Panama  lasted  three  years.  No  human  sagacity 
can  decide  with  certainty  what  would  have  been  the  duration  or 
result  of  such  a  conflict  as  would  have  ensued,  nor  what  would  have 
been  the  amount  of  bloodshed  and  devastation  which  would  have 
afflicted  the  Isthmus,  or  the  sum  of  the  injury  which  would  have 
resulted  to  the  world  at  large  if  this  Government  had  not  taken  the 
action  of  which  you  complain. 

In  the  third  paragraph  of  your  note  you  repeat  your  claim  that  the 
action  of  your  Government  in  respect  to  the  canal  treaty  was  not 
prompted  by  any  desire  for  additional  compensation,  but  solely  by  a 
regard  for  your  constitutional  law.  In  reply  to  this  I  can  only  refer 
your  excellency  to  the  repeated  intimations  we  received  during  the 
discussion  of  the  treaty  in  Bogota  from  the  highest  and  most  honor- 
able personages  in  the  Republic,  that  a  large  increase  of  the  pecuniary 
consideration  would  result  in  the  ratification  of  the  convention;  to  the 
attempt  which  was  made  to  induce  the  French  canal  company  to  pay 
an  enormous  sum  for  permission  to  dispose  of  their  property ;  and  to 
the  report  of  the  canal  committee  to  the  Colombian  Senate,  suggesting 
the  delay  of  all  proceedings  until  the  coming  year,  when  the  exten- 
sion of  the  concession  might  be  declared  invalid  and  the  nation 
might  be  in  condition  to  deal  with  us  without  regard  to  the  French 
shareholders.  Your  reference  to  the  constitutional  question  I  have 
already  answered.  The  treaty  which  Colombia  made  and  then 
rejected  contained  no  cession  of  sovereignty;  but,  on  the  contrary, 
preserved  the  sovereignty  of  Colombia  scrupulously  intact. 

I  do  not  consider  that  this  Government  is  called  upon  to  take  notice 
of  your  statement  as  to  the  sources  from  which  the  revolutionary 
government  obtained  its  funds.  As  this  Government  had  no  partici- 
pation in  the  preparation  of  the  revolution,  it  has  no  concern  with  the 
details  of  its  history. 

I  note  with  regret  the  continued  protest  you  make  in  the  name  of 
your  Government  against  the  events  which  have  taken  place  in  Pan- 
ama, and  the  determination  of  Colombia  not  to  accept  the  situation  to 
which  they  have  given  rise.  I  am  in  harmony  with  the  sincere  desire 
of  the  Government  and  the  people  of  the  United  States  in  hoping  that 
your  Government  may  see  its  way  to  conclusions  more  in  accordance 
with  its  true  interests  and  those  of  its  sister  American  Republics,  and 
that  it  may  not  reject  the  friendly  assurances  I  am  charged  to  convey 
to  you. 

I  will  not  fox  a  moment  accept  the  imputation  of  unfriendly  mo- 
tives or  sentiments  on  the  part  of  this  country  toward  Colombia,  and, 
even  if  Colombia  should  persist  in  assuming  a  hostile  attitude  toward 
us,  it  will  only  be  after  the  most  careful  deliberation  and  with  ex- 
treme reluctance  that  this  Government  would  shape  its  course  in 
accordance  with  the  deplorable  conditions  thus  created. 

I  am,  Mr.  Minister,  with  sentiments  of  the  highest  consideration, 
Your  obedient  servant. 

John  Hay. 

Gen.  Rafael  Reyes, 

Envoy  Extraordinary  and  Minister  Plenipotentiary 

on  Special  Mission. 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL.  509 

L  Translation.] 

General  Reyes  to  Mr.  Hay. 

Legation  of  Colombia,  ox  Special  Mission, 

Washington,  January  11,  190£. 

Mr.  Secretary  :  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  reception  of 
your  excellency's  notes  of  the  5th  and  9th  of  the  present  month  of 
January.  In  the  first  your  excellency  answers  my  statement  of  griev- 
ances of  the  23d  of  December  last;  in  the  second  your  excellency 
makes  a  reply  to  my  note  of  the  6th  instant,  containing  various  decla- 
rations. 

I  must  state  that,  notwithstanding  the  respect  that  I  owe  to  your 
excellency's  efforts,  I  find  in  the  present  case  that  my  arguments  have 
not  been  refuted  by  the  otherwise  forceful  papers  to  which  I  am  refer- 
ring. I  could  abide  by  and  even  further  fortify  my  arguments,  which 
the  very  cause  they  support  make  unanswerable,  but  I  can  see  no 
result  for  such  a  course,  since,  under  the  circumstances  that  surround 
the  debate,  there  is,  on  the  part  of  your  excellency's  Government,  no 
opinion  to  form,  but  a  decision  already  reached. 

I  therefore  confine  myself  to  submitting  a  few  remarks  on  your 
excellency's  position  in  regard  to  my  request  that  the  pending  differ- 
ence be  referred  to  The  Hague  tribunal. 

True,  it  lies  with  the  several  States  to  recognize  a  new  member  of 
the  family  of  nations ;  but  haste  and  circumstances  may  always  in- 
volve a  disregard  of  international  law  while  profession  is  made  to 
maintain  it. 

The  recognition  of  a  new  State  separated  from  a  friendly  nation 
would  be  a  legitimate  act  on  the  part  of  foreign  nations,  in  so  far  as 
they  observe  strict  neutrality  between  the  contesting  parties;  but  it  is 
a  violation  of  the  principles  that  govern  the  relations  of  the  inter- 
national community  when  one  of  the  belligerents  is  hindered  from  the 
exercise  of  his  rights  and  the  use  of  his  forces,  and  much  more  so 
when  a  public  treaty  is  infringed.  The  treaty  of  1846  being  in  force 
between  the  Governments  of  the  United  States  and  of  Colombia,  the 
dilemma  that  confronted  the  former  when  the  movement  occurred  at 
Panama  may  not  have  been  that  which  your  excellency  contemplates, 
but  rather  the  following:  Either  to  recognize  that  Panama  was  an 
integral  part  of  Colombia  or  invest  it  with  the  character  of  a  separate 
entity. 

In'  the  first  case,  whatever  be  the  position  of  your  excellency's 
Government  touching  neutrality  in  intestine  strifes,  it  had  no  cause 
for  preventing  Colombia  from  subduing  the  rebellion;  in  the  other 
case  the  Government  of  the  United  States  was  obligated  to  enforce 
the  respect  of  Colombian  sovereignty,  and,  in  either  event,  it  is  as 
untenable  a  proposition  in  law  to  hold  obligations  toward  a  nation 
as  fulfilled  in  one  of  its  rebellions  or  separated  provinces  as,  in  mathe- 
matics, to  insist  that  the  part  and  the  whole  are  equivalent.  And  it 
is  fit  here  to  observe  that  the  reason  why  I  asserted  to  your  excellency 
that  if  I  had  not  been  prevented  from*  landing  the  forces  under  my 
command  on  the  19th  of  November,  fifteen  days  after  the  rebellion 
had  broken  out.  it  would  have  been  immediately  smothered,  is  that 
the  garrison  bought  off  in  Panama  did  not  exceed  200  men. 


510  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL. 

At  the  close  of  the  first  of  the  notes  hereby  answered,  your  excel- 
lency, referring  to  my  proposal  to  refer  to  the  arbitration  of  The 
Hague  tribunal  the  claims  that  my  country  desires  to  have  settled  in 
an  amicable  and  decorous  manner,  states  that  the  questions  presented 
in  my  statement  of  grievances  "  are  of  a  political  nature  such  as 
nations  of  even  the  most  advanced  ideas  as  to  international  arbitra- 
tion have  not  proposed  to  deal  with  by  that  process."  I  must  point 
out  to  your  excellency  that  the  infringement  of  the  treaty  of  1846  has 
resulted  in  civil  consequences  of  the  greatest  import  which  do  come 
within  the  scope  of  the  jurisdiction  of  courts.  Colombia,  for  instance, 
has  no  claim  against  Germany,  France,  England,  etc.,  by  reason  of 
the  recognition  of  Panama  as  an  independent  State,  little  as  the  pro- 
ceeding may  be  a  friendly  act,  because  she  had  and  has  no  treaty  with 
those  countries  that  made  them  guarantors  of  her  sovereignty  and 
ownership ;  but  with  your  excellency's  Government  the  case  is  very 
different,  for  reasons  that  may  be  ignored  but  which  will  live  as  long 
as  the  sense  of  justice,  slow  but  sure,  shall  endure  in  this  world. 

The  injuries  that  Colombia  has  already  suffered  and  will  continue  to 
suffer  in  consequence  of  the  infringement  of  the  treaty  are  manifest 
and  actual,  and  the  refusal  to  entertain  her  claims  as  well  as  her  lack- 
ing the  strength  to  secure  redress  put  her  under  the  painful  necessity 
of  asking  of  the  mighty  Government  and  people  of  the  United  States 
that  the  tribunal  called  upon  to  decide  her  case  be  one  of  unquestion- 
able standing  and  impartiality.  I  have  such  a  high  opinion  of  your 
excellency's  sound  judgment  that  I  still  permit  myself  to  hope  that 
it  will  bring  about  a  reconsideration  of  your  decision  or  a  suggestion 
to  my  Government  of  some  other  means  of  doing  Colombia  justice  in 
a  manner  compatible  with  her  honor. 

I  see  from  the  second  paragraph  of  your  excellency's  note  of  the 
9th  instant  that  the  American  Government  does  not  and  can  not 
consider  as  a  declaration  of  war  on  the  part  of  Colombia  the  fact  that 
the  army  of  my  country  should  enter  Colombian  territory,  as  is 
that  of  Panama,  for  the  purpose  of  subduing  the  rebellion.  This 
makes  me  confident  that  there  will  be  no  conflict  between  the  Colom- 
bian and  American  forces  when  the  former  take  the  field  on  the 
Isthmus.  And  I  have  to  point  out  here  that,  contrary  to  the  state- 
ment made  in  official  documents,  Panama  never  was  independent  or 
belonged  to  any  nation  other  than  Colombia  since  the  latter  gained 
her  independence.  All  of  the  royal  letters  patent  issued  from  1533  to 
1803  incorporated  the  provinces  of  Darien,  Portobelo,  and  Veragues, 
which  embraced  the  whole  territory  of  the  Isthmus,  into  the  vice- 
royalty  of  the  new  kingdom  of  Granada.  The  declaration  of  1821, 
made  by  those  provinces  when  New  Granada  had  already  cleared  the 
country  of  the  enemy  that  held  the  former  viceroyalty  under  its  yoke, 
was  nothing  more,  in  fact,  than  the  sanction  of  the  uti  possidetis  of 
1810,  the  main  foundation  of  the  rights  of  all  Spanish- American 
countries. 

I  profoundly  regret,  on  the  failure  of  the  mission  which  was  in- 
trusted to  me,  that  my  well-meant  efforts  to  reach  a  fair  and  honor- 
able settlement  with  your  excellency's  Government  have  thus  far  been 
in  vain,  and  compelled,  as  I  am  thereby,  to  depart.  I  once  more  con- 
firm the  contents  of  my  previous  notes  and.  in  the  name  of  Colombia, 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  51  1 

enter  a  solemn  protest  against  the  denial  of  justice  inflicted  on  my 
country  by  one  of  the  most  powerful  governments  in  the  world,  bound 
by  its  very  power  to  be  equitable,  and  put  on  your  excellency's  Gov- 
ernment the  responsibility  for  all  evils  to  come. 

Being  unable,  under  existing  circumstances,  to  take  personal  leave 
of  the  most  excellent  President  and  of  your  excellency,  I  beg  you  will 
accept  this  excuse  and  the  expression  of  my  thanks  for  the  personal 
attentions  I  have  received  at  the  hands  of  all  the  members  of  the 
administration. 

I  am,  with  sentiments  of  the  highest  consideration, 
Your  excellency's  obedient  servant, 

Rafael  Reyes. 


Mr.  Hay  to  General  Reyes. 

Department  of  State, 
Washington,  January  13,  190^. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  receipt  of  your  excellency's 
communication  of  the  11th  of  January,  1904,  in  which  you  ask  that 
this  Government  shall  reconsider  its  decision  in  regard  to  the  submis- 
sion of  the  claims  of  Colombia  to  the  arbitration  of  The  Hague,  or,  as 
an  alternative  to  this,  you  invite  a  suggestion  to  your  Government  of 
some  other  means  of  doing  Colombia  justice  in  a  manner  compatible 
with  her  honor. 

In  reply  I  beg  to  inform  you  that  this  Government  sees  no  reason 
to  reconsider  its  attitude  in  these  matters,  which  has  been  adopted 
after  mature  deliberation  and  reflection. 

Referring  to  your  communication  above-mentioned,  and  also  to  the 
conversation  which  I  had  the  honor  to  hold  with  your  excellency  on 
the  same  day,  I  am  now  instructed  by  the  President  to  make  the  fol- 
lowing suggestion.  This  Government  is  now,  as  it  always  has  been, 
and  as  I  have  frequently  had  the  honor  to  inform  your  excellency, 
most  desirous  to  lend  its  good  offices  for  the  establishment  of  friendly 
relations  between  the  Republic  of  Colombia  and  that  of  Panama.  We 
think  that  they  might  be  exercised  with  a  hope  of  a  favorable  result 
if  Colombia,  as  may  be  inferred  from  our  interchange  of  views,  should 
consider  that  the  conditions  necessary  to  its  recognition  of  the  existing 
state  of  things  are : 

First.  To  submit  to  a  plebiscite  the  question  whether  the  people  of 
the  Isthmus  prefer  allegiance  to  the  Republic  of  Panama  or  to  the 
Republic  of  Colombia. 

Second.  To  submit  to  a  special  court  of  arbitration  the  settlement 
of  those  claims  of  a  material  order  which  either  Colombia  or  Panama 
by  mutual  agreement  may  reasonably  bring  forward  aginst  the 
other,  as  a  consequence  of  facts  preceding  or  following  the  declaration 
of  independence  of  Panama. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  with  sentiments  of  the  highest  regard 
and  consideration, 

Sincerely,  yours,  John  Hay, 


512  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA  CANAL. 

Mr.  Buchanan  to  Mr.  Hay. 

No.  4]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

(Special  Mission), 
Panama,  December  25,  1903. 

Sir  :  I  have  the  honor  to  advise  you  of  my  arival  at  Colon  on  the 
morning  of  the  22d.  I  was  met  there  by  Dr.  Gonzales  Guill,  sub- 
secretary  for  foreign  affairs,  and  Dr.  Juan  Mendez,  private  secretary 
to  the  junta.  A  private  car  was  placed  at  my  disposal  and  every  pos- 
sible courtesy  shown  me. 

I  reached  Panama  at  noon  and  was  met  at  the  station  by  the  min- 
ister for  foreign  affairs  and  by  him  escorted  to  the  hotel. 

I  transmitted  the  office  copy  of  my  credentials  to  the  minister  for 
foreign  affairs,  with  a  note,  a  copy  of  which  I  inclose^  under  "  Inclo- 
sure  1,"  dated  the  23d,  and  handed  to  the  minister  early  on  the 
morning  of  the  24th,  together  with  a  second  note  containing  a  confi- 
dential copy  of  the  remarks  I  proposed  to  make  upon  presenting  my 
letter  to  the  junta.  A  copy  of  this  note,  together  with  its  inclosures, 
will  be  found  herein,  under  "  Inclosure  2."     *     *     * 

I  was  notified  by  the  minister  for  foreign  affairs  on  the  24th  that  I 
would  be  received  by  the  junta  to-day  (25th)  at  3  p.  m.  At  that  hour 
I  was  conducted  to  the  Government  House,  our  carriage  passing 
through  two  short  streets  which  were  lined  on  both  sides  with  infan- 
try. At  the  Government  House  I  was  awaited  by  the  junta,  the  cabi- 
net, the  supreme  court,  and  all  the  military  officers  of  high  rank  in 
the  Republic.  My  reception  was  marked  by  dignity  and  modest 
good  taste  shown  by  the  Government.  A'  military  band  played  the 
Star  Spangled  Banner  as  I  entered  and  when  I  retired  from  the  Gov- 
ernment House. 

In  response  to  my  remarks  Doctor  Arango,  for  the  junta,  read  a 
reply;  a  copy  and  translation  you  will  find  herewith,  marked  "In- 
closure 3." 

The  entire  consular  corps  was  present  at  the  reception,  with  the 
exception  of  the  Central  American  consuls  and  those  from  Chile  and 
the  Argentine.     *     *     * 

My  reception  to-day  was  in  every  way  marked  by  a  dignified, 
grateful  respect  and  regard  for  our  country,  and  was  therefore  very 
gratifying  to  me. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  . 

Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

Wm.  I.  Buchanan. 


[Inclosure  1.] 

Mr.  Buchanan  to  the  minister  for  foreign  affairs. 

Panama,  December  23, 1903. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  advise  your  excellency  of  my  designation 
by  the  President  as  envoy  extraordinary  and  minister  plenipotentiary 
of  the  United  States  of  America  on  special  mission  to  your  excel- 
lency's Government  and  to  inclose  herewith  an  office  copy  of  the 
letter  I  bear  from  the  President  accrediting  me  in  such  capacity. 

I  beg  to  request  your  excellency  to  be  good  enough  to  designate  a 
time  at  which  I  may  have  the  honor  to  present  the  original  to  their 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OP    THE    PANAMA   CANAL.  513 

excellencies  the  members  of  the  junta  of  the  provisional  government 
of  the  Eepublic  of  Panama. 
I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir, 

Very  respectfully,  your  excellency's  obedient  servant, 

Wm.  I.  Buchanan. 


[Inclosure  2.] 

Mr.  Buchanan  to  the  minister  for  foreign  affairs. 

Confidential.]  Grand  Hotel, 

Panama,  December  23, 1903. 

Sir:  I  beg  to  inclose  for  your  excellency's  information  a  copy  of 
the  remarks  I  shall  have  the  honor  to  make  to  their  excellencies  the 
members  of  the  junta  of  the  provisional  government  upon  the  occa- 
sion of  my  presenting  to  their  excellencies  my  letter  of  credence  from 
the  President  of  the  United  States. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  very  respectfully,  your  excellency's 
obedient  servant, 

Wm.  I.  Buchanan. 

[Copy  of  Mr.  Buchanan's  remarks  upon  presenting  his  credentials.] 

I  have  the  honor  to  present  to  your  excellencies  the  letter  of  credence  I  bear 
from  the  President  of  the  United  States  of  America  accrediting  me  as  an  envoy 
on  special  mission  to  your  excellencies'  Government. 

I  am  deply  sensible  of  the  honor  thus  conferred  upon  me  by  the  President 
and  profoundly  grateful  for  the  opportunity  I  am  thus  offorded  to  meet  your 
excellencies'  people  and  to  study  the  conditions  and  possibilities  of  the  Republic 
of  Panama. 

The  advent  and  the  future  development  and  life  of  this  new  nation  is  a  sub- 
ject of  keen  and  kindly  interest  to  the  American  people,  who  all  wish  for  your 
excellencies'  people  and  country  that  wide  progress  and  advancement  which 
peace,  quiet,  and  economy  bring  to  all  countries. 

I  am  charged  by  the  President  to  express  to  your  excellencies  his  fervent  wish 
that  these  benefits  shall  come  to  the  Republic  of  Panama,  and  that  happiness, 
contentment,  and  prosperity  may  abide  with  your  excellencies'  people. 


[Inclosure  3. — Translation.] 

Sir:  The  junta  of  the  provisional  government  of  the  Republic  of 
Panama  receives  from  your  hands  with  lively  satisfaction  the  letter 
of  His  Excellency  the  President  of  the  United  States  of  America 
which  accredits  you  before  this  new  nation  as  special  envoy  of  yowv 
Government.  By  this  the  greatest  Eepublic  of  the  American  Conti- 
nent dignifies  its  appreciation  of  the  least  as  an  equal  with  her  sister 
Republics  of  the  New  World,  thus  clearly  manifesting  the  high  spirit 
of  justice  which  animates  the  great  people  of  the  north,  in  whose 
favor  our  people  extend  their  best  washes  and  their  best  intentions. 

The  junta  of  the  provisional  government  of  the  Republic  of  Pan- 
ama considers  the  selection  by  the  United  States  Government  of  one 
who,  like  yourself,  unites  in  himself  such  marked  personal  and  public 
qualities  as  to  enable  him  to  duly  appreciate  the  present  conditions 
of  our  country  as  a  high  mark  of  deference.  Your  presence  in  our 
midst  will  be  the  means,  if  that  be  possible,  of  more  closely  linking 
the  two  nations  together  in  sincere  friendship  and  accord. 

42112— S.  Doc.  474,  63-2 33 


514  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

Notwithstanding  we  know  that  the  people  of  your  country  are  in- 
terested in  the  existence  and  development  of  this  nation,  it  has  been 
especially  gratifying  to  this  junta  to  hear  the  fact  repeated  by  the 
official  representative  of  that  people,  as  great  as  they  are  generous 
and  as  free  as  they  are  well  ordered.  We  pray  the  Almighty  that,  as 
you  have  said,  the  benefits  of  progress,  the  advancements  from  peace, 
and  the  emoluments  of  order — the  harvest  the  people  of  Panama  as- 
pire to — may  follow,  if  possible,  along  the  luminous  path  set  by  your 
country  with  marked  advantage  for  humanity. 

You  can  assure  Mis  Excellency  the  President  of  your  Nation  that 
the  Government  and  people  of  Panama  thank  him  for  his  good 
wishes  for  this  Republic,  and  that  we  in  return  fervently  hope  that 
all  good  may  come  to  his  people  and  to  himself. 


No.  6.]  Mr.  Buchanan  to  Mr.  Hay. 

Legation  or  the  United  States 

(Special  Mission), 
Panama,  December  27, 1903. 

Sir:  In  view  of  the  opinion  held  by  some  of  our  people  to  the  effect 
that  the  revolution  here  had  nothing  at  the  base  other  than  the  canal 
question  and  that  no  serious  dissension  has  existed  in  Colombia  be- 
tween the  Bogota  ruling  element  and  the  different  Departments  (or 
States),  the  inclosed  clippings  will  interest  you.  I  am  sure. 

The  first  is  a  translation  of  a  remarkable  letter  recently  written  the 
Colombian  minister  of  war  by  one  of  Colombia's  best  known  and  most 
valiant  generals — Gen.  Leopoldo  Triana — now  in  command  of  a  divi- 
sion (by  rank)  and  actually  president  of  the  council  of  the  capital  of 
the  Department  of  Cauca. 

The  weak  hold  on  the  nation  exercised  by  the  Bogota  Government 
can  be  appreciated  when  one  stops  to  realize  that  a  letter  such  as  the 
one  I  inclose  can  be  written  by  an  officer  of  the  army  to  his  Govern- 
ment and  the  writer  escape  punishment;  it  also  indicates  the  extent  to 
which  secession  from  the  Bogota  Government  has  grown  in  the  De- 
partment of  Cauca. 

As  a  most  significant  evidence  of  the  fact  that  Bogota  fully  appre- 
ciates the  national  situation  now  and  is  anxious  by  any  means  to  avert 
further  breaking  away  from  the  Central  Government,  on  the  part  of 
Departments,  the  second  inclosure  herein  will  most  certainly  attract 
your  attention. 

It  is,  as  you  will  note,  an  order  from  the  Bogota  Government  to  all 
governors  to  immediately  call  for  an  expression  from  their  different 
municipalities  as  to  the  urgency  of  some  constitutional  reforms  and  as 
to  how  they  believe  these  shall  be  brought  about.  It  is  of  course 
possible  that  this  course  may  have  been  adopted  by  the  Bogota  Gov- 
ernment in  order  to  gain  time  to  work  out  some  plan,  but  is  more 
probable  a  necessary  step  they  were  obliged  to  take  to  save  a  critical 
condition  in  several  of  their  Departments,  notably  in  Cauca. 

I  have  taken  the  copy  of  the  order  from  El  Rigoletto,  of  Barran- 
quilla,  under  date  of  December  16.  I  have  made  a  translation  of  the 
order,  which  I  also  inclose. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant. 

Wm.  I.  Buchanan. 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTOEY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL.  515 

[Inelosure  1.] 
[Panama    (Republic  of  Panama)    Star  and  Herald,  Friday,  December  25,   1903.] 

BES    NON    VERBA. 

Cali,  November  20,  1903. 

Your  excellency  asks  me,  in  a  telegram  of  the  16th,  whether  it  is  true  that  I 
and  propagating  in  the  Cauca  tlie  idea  of  separation,  and  I  am  called  upon  to 
state  frankly  my  views  in  this  respect,  and,  with  the  characteristic  frankness 
which  your  excellency  acknowledges  in  me,  I  make  this  statement:  It  is  true 
that  I  have  written  something  like  a  dozen  letters  drafted  on  the  same  model 
as  the  one  that  was  sent  from  Buenaventura  to  General  Velasco  and  sent  by  him 
to  your  excellency. 

I  have  thought  and  do  think,  honestly,  that  the  Cauca  is  in  need  of  exercising 
in  the  nation  the  influence  to  which  it  has  a  right,  in  order  that  its  legitimate 
interests  be  duly  respected  and  cared  for  and  to  put  a  stop  to  the  practice  of 
abusing,  as  hitherto,  the  good  faith  and  patriotism  of  its  people,  with  detriment 
to  its  well-being  and  its  hopes  of  progress.     *     *     * 

Watching  attentively  the  march  of  national  affairs,  especially  after  the  re- 
establishment  of  order  in  June  last,  I  am  persuaded  by  patriotic  considerations 
that  there  is  need  of  modifying  the  ultra  central  system  in  order  that  the  Gov- 
ernment may  not  put  aside  the  interests  of  the  Departments,  a  system  which  has 
naturally  been  a  cause  for  the  separation  of  Panama  and  has  germinated  the 
same  idea  in  the  rest  of  the  Departments. 

The  voice  of  the  Cauca,  the  great  champion  in  time  of  war  and  the  most 
despised  at  the  time  of  reward,  has  had  no  weight  at  Bogota,  where  we  are 
treated  as  a  horde  of  savages  or  a  flock  of  sheep. 

Innumerable  are  the  recent  scandalous  acts  which  reveal  the  corruption  of  the 
national  metropolis,  where  a  traffic  is  carried  on  in  which  the  conscience  and 
everything  else  is  involved,  and  which  makes  it  abominable  for  people  who 
anxiously  desire  peace  and  tranquility  to  work  with  the  hope  of  reaping  the 
benefit  of  honest  labor.  The  general  attention  there  is  given  up  to  absorbing, 
like  a  huge  sponge,  the  political  combinations,  in  which,  however,  no  idea  tend- 
ing to  the  well-being  of  the  public  is  ever  considered,  but  only  such  as  redound 
to  preserve  and  acquire  influence  to  be  subsequently  productive  of  pecuniary 
gain  to  those  who  dispose  of  the  faith  of  the  country  for  their  own  personal 
benefit. 

So  long  as  there  is  no  public  administration ;  so  long  as  the  men  at  the  head  of 
the  Government  do  not  persuade  themselves  that  they  are  the  agents  of  a  free 
people,  we  shall  continue  sliding  down  the  slippery  slope  of  dissolution,  thus 
shattering  the  bond  of  union  honestly  implanted  by  the  delegates  of  1886. 

I  am  in  favor  of  federation  as  the  only  means  of  preserving  the  n  tional  union, 
as  it  is  only  in  this  way  that  the  different  sections  can  be  protected  against  the 
political,  financial,  and  electoral  trusts  of  the  capital,  and  the  only  way  of  attend- 
ing to  their  wants  and  stimulating  the  youth  of  the  provinces  not  yet  contami- 
nated by  the  leprosy  of  the  capital  or  by  the  corrupting  mercantile  spirit. 

Public  instruction,  in  a  professional  sense,  has  absolutely  disappeared  in  the 
Cauca;  the  present  generation,  according  to  the  opinion  of  a  well-known  writer 
of  Antioquia,  will   not  encumber  history. 

In  the  new  order  of  things  the  Government  could  reserve  to  itself  the  political 
direction  of  the  country;  the  keeping  of  foreign  affairs  on  a  footing  of  open  and 
honest  friendship  with  all  countries,  especially  with  our  neighbors;  unification 
of  the  metallic  coinage,  the  unity  of  the  civil  and  penal  legislation,  and  the 
settlement  of  the  foreign  debt,  so  as  to  uphold  our  public  credit.  Other  matters 
would  rest  with  the  different  sections,  be  these  denominated  States  or  Depart- 
ments, including  the  redemption  of  the  paper  currency,  which  is  a  political  and 
social  evil,  greater  even  than  the  scheme  of  separation  which  is  bothering  our 
minds. 

Since  your  excellency  desired  to  know  my  views  I  have  expressed  them  openly 
and  frankly,  in  the  same  way  it  is  my  duty  to  inform  your  excellency  that  the 
indignation  is  general  in  the  Cauca  in  consequence  of  the  blunders  in  Bogota, 
and  that  in  spite  of  information  which  the  Government  may  have  received  to  the 
contrary,  the  idea  about  separation  is  almost  unanimous:  to  crush  that  opinion 
not  a  single  battalion  could  be  organized,  because  the  outcome  would  be  futile; 
further,  if  the  Government  wishes  to  keep  intact  the  integrity  of  Colombia, 
instead  of  attempting  the  task  by  the  use  of  bayonets  it  would  do  well  to  eua- 


516  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA   CANAL. 

power  commissions  to  carry  out  the  work  diplomatically,  offering  something  that 
shall  be  complied  with  in  administrative  matters  of  municipal  life  which  does 
not  exist,  and  of  civil  and  political  liberty. 

The  events  in  Panama  being  accomplished  facts,  there  is,  in  my  opinion,  no 
other  recourse  left  but  to  convene  a  national  convention  to  be  composed  of  the 
leading  representatives  of  all  the  political  parties  in  order  to  come  to  an  agree- 
ment as  to  a  modus  Vivendi  and  contrive  to  heal  the  wounds  inflicted  on  the 
nation.  In  that  laudable  work  we  shall  second  the  Government  without  vacilla- 
tion and  without  distinction  of  opinions. 

I  beg  to  request  your  excellency,  in  a  very  special  manner,  to  have  this  tele- 
gram brought  to  the  knowledge  of  his  excellency  the  Vice  President  of  the  Re- 
public and  the  cabinet,  for  it  conveys  the  general  feelings  of  the  people  of 
Cauca. 

I  am,  your  excellency's  devoted  friend  and  compatriot, 

Leopoldo  Triana  C, 

General  of  Division. 

General  Triana,  author  of  the  telegram  to  his  excellency  the  minister  of  war, 
above  quoted,  is  a  native  of  Cauca,  was  chief  of  division  of  the  Colombian  army 
in  that  Department  and  is  at  present  occupying  the  high  position  of  president 
of  the  municipal  council  of  Cali,  its  capital. 


[Inclosure  2.] 

Barranquilla,  December  16,  1!)03. 
The  Director  of  the  Rigoletto  : 

I  have  just  received  the  following  circular,  marked  "  urgent,"  from  the  civil 
and  military  governor  of  the  Department.     It  is  as  follows: 

Cartagena,  December  15,  1903. 
To  all  prefects  and  mayors: 

I  have  received  the  following  telegram  from  his  excellency  the  Vice  President 
of  the  Republic  and  his  cabinet.  This  is  as  follows:  Circular,  official,  dated 
Bogota.  To  all  governors  :  Competent  citizens  of  various  departments  think  that 
reforms  must  be  introduced  in  our  institutions  which  will  tend  to  decentralize 
the  public  administration,  and  thereby  develop  the  individual  life  of  departments 
and  of  municipalities.  It  is  their  judgment  that  the  integrity  of  the  country 
can  by  this  means  be  guaranteed  and  every  motive  for  discord  and  lack  of 
tranquillity  be  removed. 

If  such  reforms  are  to  follow  the  regular  course  provided  by  article  209  of  the 
constitution,  they  can  only  be  brought  about  by  the  vote  of  two  legislatures,  as 
provided  therein. 

The  Government,  always  respectful  and  deferential  to  national  opinion,  is 
anxious  to  know  the  views  of  all  Colombians  with  respect  to  such  reforms,  and 
as  to  whether  or  not  the  country  desires  that  they  shall  be  introduced  by  some 
other  method  than  that  permitted  by  the  constitution.  To  that  end  you  are 
urgently  requested  to  direct  a  communication  to  the  different  municipalities  in 
your  department,  soliciting  their  opinion  concerning  the  above  points. 

The  vote  of  each  municipality  must  be  properly  certified  and  sent  as  quickly 
as  possible  to  the  proper  branch  of  each  department,  and  by  these  immediately 
transmitted  to  the  Government.  God  guard  you.  (Signed)  Jose  Manuel  Mar- 
roquin.     (Here  follows  signatures  of  cabinet.) 

The  office  enthusiastically  participates  in  these  ideas  inspired  for  the  country's 
good  and  for  the  tranquility  to  you.  The  situation  created  by  the  pernicious 
example  of  Panama  requires  careful  study  and  demands  of  Colombia's  faithful 
sons  that  they  shall  forget  past  wrongs,  errors,  and  unstableness,  that  they  may 
enter  the  new  pathway  indicated,  wherein  lies  the  good  and  the  upbuilding  of 
our  country. 

For  these  reason  the  determination  taken  by  the  National  Government  with- 
out reserve  deserves  the  applause  of  all,  since  it  points  to  the  introduction  of 
reforms  in  our  institutions  which  will  bring  about  the  decentralization  of  the 
departments  and  municipalities  and  at  the  same  time  carry  away  all  motives  of 
discord  and  guarantee  the  integrity  of  the  Republic. 

The  present  is  an  hour  calling  for  concord,  patriotism,  and  for  frank  and  full 
reconciliation.     Colombia  is  now  passing  through  an  exceptional  crisis,  which 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  517 

can  only  safely  be  solved  by  the  free  and  genuinely  authentic  force  of  public 
opinion.  The  imminent  gravity  of  tbe  problem  of  making  the  nation,  now 
honeycombed  with  the  dissensions  of  partisanship,  into  a  stable,  solid  entity, 
capable  of  victoriously  taking  care  of  every  eventuality  of  the  future,  is  ap- 
parent. 

These  things  counsel  us  to  promptly  remedy  existing  evils,  but  this  will  come 
too  late  if  the  reforms  desired  were  to  be  introduced  through  the  medium  pro- 
vided by  article  210  of  the  constitution,  which  says :  "  This  constitution  may 
be  amended  by  a  legislative  act.  after  discussion  and  approbation  by  Congress 
and  by  this  being  transmitted  to  the  Executive  power  and  with  that  approval 
returned  to  the  next  Congress,  wherein  it  must  be  debated  and  approved  by 
two-thirds  of  the  votes  of  both  Houses." 

This  office  desires,  therefore,  that  you  will  immediately  proceed  to  make  the 
above  noble  aspirations  of  the  Executive  power  known  to  all  citizens,  making 
use  of  all  the  postal  and  telegrapbic  facilities  of  the  nation  to  this  end,  and 
that  you  will  cooperate  actively  with  the  municipalities  and  see  that  these 
without  delay  carry  out  the  important  mission  thus  confided  to  them  on  this 
solemn  occasion  by  the  national  Government,  by  giving  their  conclusion  with 
respect  to  the  necessity  and  urgency  of  such  reforms  and  as  to  whether  they 
desire  to  have  them  introduced  by  methods  different  from  those  permitted  by 
the  constitution. 

I  request  you  to  immediately  send  the  results  to  this  office  by  special 
messenger. 

Jose  Francisco  Insinares. 

(Here  follow  signatures  of  departmental  cabinet.) 

(Here  follow  orders  from  prefect  to  all  mayors  of  provinces  to  see  that  this 
order  is  carried  out.) 


Mr.  Buchanan  to  Mr.  Hay. 

No.  7.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

(Special  Mission), 
Panama,  December  28,  1903. 
Sir:  I  beg  to  inclose  herewith  two  copies  of  a  pamphlet  recently 
issued  here  and  accredited  by  everyone  with  whom  I  have  talked  as 
an  accurate  story  of  the  uprising  here,  to  which  I  direct  your  atten- 
tion. I  believe  it  would  be  well  to  have  parts  of  it  translated  and 
given  to  the  press,  since  it  tends  to  strongly  show  how  long  the  sepa- 
ratist sentiment  and  the  intention  to  bring  it  about  have  lain  dormant 
hereabout.     *     *     * 

I  have  the  honor  to  be.  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

Wm.  I.  Buchanan. 


Republic  of  Panama, 
Department  of  Foreign  Relations, 

Panama.  December  18,  1903. 
Mr.  Ramon  M.  Values.  Present : 

The  council  (junta)  of  the  provisional  government  of  the  Republic  has  re- 
ceived with  great  satisfaction  the  pamphlet  you  have  been  good  enough  to  pub- 
lish, concerning  the  history  and  causes  justifying  the  secession  movement  effected 
November  3  last,  which  has  resulted  in  the  definite  establishment  of  this  Repub- 
lic as  a  free  and  independent  nation.  I  therefore  take  the  liberty  of  manifesting 
to  you  the  complete  approval  that  such  a  historic  work  deserves  because  of  its 
faithful  exposition  of  the  facts,  the  lofty  sentiments  which  it  contains,  and  the 
interesting  data  and  official  documents  collected  by  you  with  such  perseverence 
and  skill. 

I  am.  sir.  your  obedient  servant. 

F.    O.    DE    LA    ESPRIELLA. 


518  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA   CANAL. 

The  Independence  of  the   Isthmus  of  Panama — Its   History,  Causes,   and 

Justification. 

There  has  been  no  lack  nor  will  there  he  a  lack  of  persons  who  will  take  upon 
themselves  the  task  of  maintaining  that  the  Isthmus  of  Panama  has  heen  happy 
under  the  domination  of  the  Government  of  Colombia:  that  the  prevailing  senti- 
ments of  the  natives  of  this  beautiful  land,  which  serves  as  a  bridge  for  the 
civilized  world,  have  been  and  are  of  perpetual  adhesion  and  of  cordial  gratitude 
to  the  Colombian  nation  for  the  great  benefactions  it  has  given  us.  in  order  to 
conclude  with  the  demonstration  that  the  secession  movement,  carried  to  such  a 
successful  termination  on  the  3d  of  the  present  month,  is  not  the  spontaneous 
outcome  of  the  popular  will,  but  a  momentary  alienation  skillfully  produced  by 
a  few  bold  speculators  who  sacrifice  the  purest  ideals  to  the*  ungovernable 
desire  of  making  or  augmenting  their  fortunes  out  of  the  construction  of  an 
interoceanic  canal. 

Others,  or  perhaps  the  same  persons,  will  attempt  to  prove  that  the  first  and 
only  author  of  the  transcendent  event  is  the  colossus  of  the  north,  who  has 
overcome  our  loyalty  to  Colombia  for  the  purpose  of  revenging  itself  for  the  re- 
jection which  that  nation  made  of  the  Hay-Herran  treaty,  and  which  the  former 
considers  an  unpardonable  offense. 

This  must  happen  as  we  predict,  and  for  that  reason  the  time  is  opportune  to 
state  the  truth,  to  reveal  facts  which  it  concerns  the  entire  world  to  know, 
and  to  infuse  even  into  the  minds  of  the  most  incredulous  or  blind  the  convic- 
tion that  the  act  executed  on  November  ?>  last  is  the  logical  sequence  of  a  situa- 
tion already  unendurable,  the  solution  of  a  grave  and  vexatious  problem,  the 
sincere,  firm,  definite,  and  irrevocable  manifestation  of  the  will  of  the  people. 

1.  It  would  not  be  just  to  censure  the  heroes  who  emancipated  us  from  the  power 
of  Spain  by  their  determination  to  annex  the  Isthmus  to  the  Republic  of  the 
Great  Colombia,  which  seemed  to  rise  all  powerful  and  with  a  future  full  of 
promise  and  prestige  out  of  the  epicycle  of  independence.  Under  identical 
circumstances  we  of  to-day  would  have  acted  in  like  manner;  but  it  is  well  to 
bear  in  mind  that  the  question  of  selecting  a  South  American  nation  to  which 
the  Isthmus  should  unite  was  the  cause  of  passionate  and  continued  delibera- 
tions of  patriotic  statesmen.  The  uncertainty  that  a  small  country,  sparsely 
populated,  could  maintain  itself  alone  without  danger  to  its  sovereignty,  and 
the  fact  of  our  country  being  contiguous  to  that  of  Colombia — although  the 
vast  extent  of  intervening  territory  was  theu.  as  it  is  now.  a  wilderness,  with- 
out means  of  communication,  and  delivered  up  to  the  almost  absolute  dominion 
of  the  wildness  of  nature — were  sufficient  reasous  for  our  forefathers  to  resolve 
to  unite  the  provinces  of  the  Isthmus  to  the  republican  State  mentioned,  con- 
tenting themselves  with  the  sole  means  of  maritime  communication  for  the 
purpose  of  maintaining  intercourse  and  communication  with  a  government 
situated  in  the  interior  of  the  continent,  hundreds  of  leagues  distant,  on  a  table- 
land of  a  chain  of  the  Andes  exceedingly  difficult  of  access. 

These  physical  disadvantages  to  which  we  have  alluded  were  further  compli- 
cated with  others  of  a  different  character  and  exceptionally  grave.  Colombia 
was  organized  with  a  central  government  which  boded  ill  to  the  Isthmus,  inas- 
much as  that  Government,  leaving  the  provinces  in  a  state  of  abandonment  so 
much  the  greater  because  of  their  distance  from  the  capital,  took  from  them  at 
the  same  time  the  means  and  resources  of  satisfying  their  wants  and  subjected 
them  to  a  complete  state  of  enervation.  Deputies  of  the  two  isthmian  prov- 
inces— Panama  and  Yeragus — attended  the  federal  congresses,  but  the  isolated 
action  of  these  deputies  could  accomplish  nothing  for  the  well-being  of  their 
provinces,  and  their  functions  were  reduced  to  the  sharing  of  political  responsi- 
bilities due  to  the  operation  of  the  established  system. 

As  a  climax  of  misfortunes  the  Granadines  like  the  Venezuelans,  proved  to  be 
men  opposed  to  every  system  of  orderly  government,  and  showed  themselves  to 
be  a  turbulent  race  with  secession  tendencies.  Soon  after  independence  was 
obtained  the  first  symptoms  of  anarchy  were  noted,  internal  revolutions  flour- 
ished, as  did  also  the  darkest  of  machinations,  which  wrung  from  the  liberator, 
Simon  Bolivar,  that  memorable  expression;  "  I  do  not  yet  discern  happiness  for 
my  country."  The  confusion  of  ideas  was  inexpressible.  Some  Colombians  be- 
gan to  think,  and  even  proposed  the  establishment  of  a  monarchy  in  the  country. 
This  scheme  had  many  proselytes,  and  the  liberator  (Bolivar),  opposed  to  all 
monarchial  ideas,  declared  that  it  was  necessary  t<»  seek  the  protection  of  a 
foreign  power. 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OP    THE    PANAMA    CANAL.  519 

The  contemplation  of  that  lamentable  state  of  affairs  caused  a  Colombian 
historian  to  record  this  melancholy  thought :  "  Colombia  had  lived  her  years  of 
fame  and  glorious  deeds  so  fast  that,  child  s  she  is,  she  has  arrived  at  a 
premature  old  age."  x 

The  spirit  of  disgust  which  was  noticeable  on  the  Isthmus  was  general,  and 
regret  at  what  had  been  done  dominated  the  thought  of  our  most  prominent 
men.  The  tendency  toward  the  separation  of  the  Isthmus  had  its  inception  at 
that  time  on.  and  in  1830.  nine  years  after  the  voluntary  annexation  to  Colombia, 
it  was  rudely  manifested  in  a  popular  gathering,  convened  in  this  city  by  Gen. 
Jose  Domingo  Espinar,  a  Panaman  by  birth,  a  distiguished  military  leader  of 
the  epoch  of  independence,  and  at  the  time  intendent  or  governor  of  Panama, 
and  one  of  the  most  enthusiastic  partisans  of  the  idea  of  separation. 

The  memorable  resolution  of  that  patriotic  assembly  contained  the  following 
recommendation :  "  Separation  from  the  rest  of  the  Republic,  especially  from 
the  Government  of  Bogota." 

The  first  sectional  impetus  did  not  fail  to  be  recorded  in  the  annals  of  Co- 
lombia, and  the  same  historian  whom  we  have  already  mentioned  describes  it  as 
follows : 

"  The  picture  of  the  Republic,  which  the  liberator  was  already  beginning  to 
see  between  the  shadows,  was  lamentable.  The  Congress  of  Venezuela,  his 
country,  demanded  his  expulsion;  Montilla  came  to  his  support  at  Cartagena, 
and  his  example  was  followed  by  Espinar  in  Panama,  and  by  the  sons  of  the 
valiant  Mompox.  From  various  places  in  Venezuela  he  received  enthusiastic 
encouragement  to  accept  the  challenge.  Rio  Hacha  rose  up  against  Bolivar  and 
asked  assistance  of  Venezuela,  and  Carujo  set  out  with  a  force  that  was  soon 
to  give  battle  to  Coronel  Blanco  at  San  Juan  de  Cesar.  The  Atlantic  Provinces 
went  so  far  as  to  consider  the  establishment  of  a  fourth  State,  and  Panama  went 
to  the  untenable  extreme  of  advocating  annexation  to  Great  Britain." 

Yielding  to  the  entreaties  of  the  illustrious  liberator,  the  Panamans  assuaged 
their  vehement  desire  of  separation  and  submitted  to  the  Federal  Government, 
confiding  all  to  the  genius  and  sublime  patriotism  of  their  great  South  Ameri- 
can chief. 

II.  But  the  sentiment  was  not  and  could  not  be  extinguished,  inasmuch  as 
the  causes  producing  it  not  only  continued  to  exist,  but  were  greatly  aggravated. 
In  1S40.  as  soon  as  a  number  of  the  Provinces  rebelled  against  the  central  Gov- 
ernment of  New  Granada,  the  people  of  this  capital  also  rose  in  rebellion,  on 
November  IS  of  that  year,  led  by  the  then  Col.  Thomas  Herrera.  for  whom  the 
future  had  in  store  such  a  brilliant  career,  and  again  proclaimed  the  independ- 
ence of  the  Isthmus,  leaving  proof  of  that  fact  in  an  authentic  popular  procla- 
mation. The  idea  of  separation  was  looked  upon  with  such  favor  that  all  the 
people  of  the  Isthmian  Provinces  at  once  supported  the  proclamation  and  sent 
delegates  to  the  convention  which  met  soon  thereafter  in  this  city  to  establish 
the  political  bases  of  the  independent  State  and  to  organize  the  Federal  Gov- 
ernment. 

Our  countrymen  will  read  to-day  with  interest  and  enthusiasm  the  funda- 
mental law  which  that  admirable  convention  adopted  and  which  we  insert,  as 
follows  : 

FUNDAMENTAL   LAW    OF   THE    STATE. 

The  convention  of  the  State  of  Panama,  considering — 

First.  That  the  majority  of  the  Provinces  has  expressly  rebelled  against  the 
central  Government,  separating  themselves  from  it  and  proclaiming  the  federa- 
tion, completely  breaking  thereby  the  social  compact  of  1832. 

Second.  That  while  the  Republic  is  being  reconstituted  in  conformity  with  the 
vote  of  the  people  the  Isthmus  can  not  remain  indifferent  to  its  lot,  but  that 
it  must  employ,  at  least  provisionally,  the  proper  means  for  obtaining  its 
security  and  welfare. 

In  conformity  with  article  15  of  the  popular  will  of  November  18  last,  decrees: 

Article  1.  The  cantons  of  the  ancient  Provinces  of  Panama  and  Veragua  shall 
compose  an  independent  and  sovereign  State,  which  shall  be  constituted  as  such 
by  the  present  convention  under  the  name  of  "  State  of  the  Isthmus." 

Art.  2.  If  the  organization  given  to  New  Granada  be  Federal  and  suitable  to 
the  interests  of  the  people  of  the  Isthmus,  the  latter  shall  form  a  State  of  the 
federation. 

1  Quijano  Otero. 


520 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OP    THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 


Sole  paragraph.  In  no  case  shall  the  Isthmus  be  incorporated  into  the  Repub- 
lic of  New  Granada  under  the  central  system. 

Art.  3.  The  convention  shall  accredit  two  commissioners  to  the  body  which 
duly  represents  the  Provinces  that  composed  the  Republic  on  New  Granada  in 
order  to  negotiate  for  the  incorporation  of  the  State  of  the  Isthmus  to  the 
federation  which  the  former  comprise.  The  convention  shall  issue  by  a  special 
yet  the  instructions  which  these  commissioners  shall  follow,  and  shall  arrange 
everything  relating  to  this  matter. 

Art.  4.  No  community  which,  separating  itself  from  any  of  the  Provinces  of 
the  federation  and  which  desire  to  incorporate  itself  into  the  State,  shall  be 
received  in  it.  Neither  shall  any  of  the  communities  who  up  to  the  present  time 
have  belonged  to  the  ancient  Provinces  of  Panama  and  Veragua  be  permitted  to 
separate  themselves  from  the  State  of  the  Isthmus. 

Art.  5.  The  State  of  the  Isthmus  recognizes  and  offers  to  pay  in  proportion 
to  its  population  the  proportion  of  the  internal  and  external  debt  due  at  the 
present  time  by  the  Granadines,  and  also  offers  not  to  divert  from  their  purpose 
the  funds  destined  to  the  public  treasury. 

Given  in  the  hall  of  sessions  of  the  convention. 

Panama,  March  18,  1841. 

The  President; 


The  vice  president,  representative  of  Panama. 

The  representative  of  the  canton  of  Alanje, 

The  representative  of  Bocas  del  Toro, 

The  representative  of  Bocas  del  Toro, 

The  representative  of  La  Chorrera, 

The  representative  of  La  Chorrera, 

The  representative  of  El  Darien, 

The  representative  of  the  canton  of  Darien, 

The  representative  of  Nata, 

The  representative  of  Nata, 

The  representative  of  Parita, 

The  representative  of  Parita, 

The  representative  of  Panama. 

The  representative  of  Portobelo. 

The  representative  of  Portobelo. 

The  representative  of  Los  Santos, 

The  representative  of  the  canton  de  los  Santos, 

The  representative  of  the  canton  de  Santiago, 

The  representative  of  Santiago, 

The  secretary  of  the  convention, 

Panama,  20  of  March,  1841. 

Let  it  be  published,  circulated,  and  observed. 


Jose  de  Obaldia. 

Mariano  Arosemena. 

Juan  Manuel  Lopez. 

Jose  Palacios. 

Jose  MarIa  Trivaldo. 

Bernardo  Arze  Mata. 

Juan  Bautista  Feraud. 

Manuel  Jose  Borbuca. 

Mariano  Arosemena  Quezada. 

Marcelino  Vega. 

Saturnino  Castor  Ospina. 

Jose  GarcIa  de  Paredes. 

Antonio  Amador. 

Jose  MarIa  Remon. 

Ram6n  Yallarino. 

Antonio  Nicanor  Ayarza. 

Jose  MarIa  Goitia. 

Francisco  Asprilla. 

Jose  Fabrega  Barrera. 

Nicolas  Orosco. 

Jose  Angel  Santos. 


Por  S.  E.  el  Jefe  del  Estado,  el  Secretario  General. 


Tomas  Herrera     [l.  s.] 
Jose  AgustIn  Arango. 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA  CANAL.  521 

The  convention,  which  remained  five  months  in  session,  adopted  laws  govern- 
ing all  branches  of  the  public  service,  and  legalized  the  power  intrusted  to  the 
skill  of  Col.  Thomas  Herrera.  heart  and  soul  of  the  movement,  and  to  Dr. 
Carlos  de  Icaza,  who  were  accompanied  by,  as  assistant  and  general  secretary, 
the  talented,  intrepid,  and  spirited  patriot,  Mr.  Jose  Augustin  Arango.1  Of 
those  acts  the  following,  which  we  insert  herewith  and  which  seem  to  receive 
new  life  from  contact  with  the  exciting  events  of  the  present  time,  are  worthy 
of  mention : 

DECREE   GRANTING   A   MEDAL   OF   CIVIC   HONOR   TO   COL.   THOMAS    HERRERA. 

The  constituent  convention  of  the  State  of  the  Isthmus,  considering : 

First.  That  Col.  Thomas  Herrera  is  worthy  of  the  gratitude  of  his  fellow 
citizens  because  of  his  able  cooperation  in  the  political  transformation,  pro- 
claimed on  that  celebrated  and  memorable  day,  the  ISth  of  the  month  of 
November,  1841,  and  for  the  administrative  skill  with  which  the  provisional 
government  of  the  State,  intrusted  at  that  time  to  his  wisdom  and  genius,  has 
been  conducted ; 

Second.  That  these  services  are  worthy  of  remuneration  by  the  representa- 
tives of  all  the  Isthmian  people,  decrees : 

Sole  article.  Col.  Thomas  Herrera  is  granted  a  gold  medal  to  be  worn  on 
his  left  breast,  suspended  by  a  tricolored  ribbon.  This  medal  shall  be  of  an  ellip- 
tical form,  15  by  11  lines  in  diameter,  and  shall  bear  on  its  obverse  side,  in 
raised  letters,  the  following  inscription  surrounded  by  a  wreath  of  laurel : 
"  Soldier  citizen,"  and  on  the  reverse,  in  the  same  manner,  "  The  convention  of 
the  people  of  the  Isthmus  in  1841,"  all  in  the  manner  indicated  in  the  descrip- 
tion accompanying  the  decree. 

Given  in  the  hall  of  sessions  of  the  convention. 

Panama,  April  6,  1841. 

The  President. 

Nicolas  Orosco. 

The  Secretary. 

Jose  Angel  Santos. 

Panama,  April  20,  1841. 

Let  it  be  published  and  duly  observed. 

[seal.]  Carlos  de  Icaza. 

For  his  excellency  the  vice  governor  of  the  State  in  charge  of  the  Government, 
the  general  secretary. 

Jose  Augustin  Arango. 

decree  concerning  the  flag  and  coat  of  arms  of  the  state. 

The  constituent  convention  of  the  State  of  the  Isthmus  decrees : 

Article  1.  The  State  of  the  Isthmus  shall  continue,  for  the  present,  to  use  the 
flag  and  coat  of  arms  of  New  Granada. 

Art.  2.  All  official  acts  which  formerly  read  Republic  of  New  Granada  shall 
in  future  read  State  of  the  Isthmus. 

Given  in  the  hall  of  sessions  of  the  convention. 

Panama,  April  2G,  1841. 

The  President, 

Mariano  Arosemena. 

The  Secretary, 

Jose  Angel  Santos. 

Panama,  May  4,  1841. 

Let  it  be  published  and  duly  observed. 

Thomas  Herrera.     [seal.] 

For  his  excellency  the  governor  of  the  State,  the  general  secretary. 

Jose  Augustin  Arango. 

The  constituent  congress  of  1S41  was,  as  has  already  been  stated,  composed 
of  a  brilliant  personnel  of  Isthmians,  surpassing  all  the  other  delegations  in 
ability  and  political  and  social  prestige.  The  Isthmian  members  of  that  con- 
gress were  venerable  representatives  of  distinguished  families,  and  the  plan  of 

1  His  son,  of  the  same  name,  is  one  of  the  members  of  the  present  junta  of  the 
Republic  of  Panama. 


522  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL. 

emancipation  which  they  advocated  with  such  firmness  and  vigor  was  to  be, 

as  it  has  been,  a  moral  heritage  which  their  successors  have  cherished  and 
preserved. 

The  numerous  gaps  shown  in  the  history  of  Colombia  concerning  the  political 
events  which  succeeded  each  other  in  the  second  half  of  the  last  century  have 
prevented  us  from  discovering  the  details  of  the  reincorporation  of  the  Isthmus 
of  Panama  to  the  Republic  of  New  Granada,  as  it  was  then  called.  But  we 
know  that  that  reincorporation  was  the  result  of  diplomatic  negotiations,  which 
took  place  in  this  city  in  1S42  between  the  government  of  the  State  of  the 
Isthmus  and  the  Granadine  Government,  represented  by  Gen.  Thomas  C.  de 
Mosquera,  in  which  negotiations  the  latter,  in  his  official  capacity,  made  liberal 
promises  concerning  political  and  administrative  decentralization,  in  order  that 
the  people  of  the  Isthmus  might  themselves  attend  to  their  wants  and  interests, 
and  expressed  a  hope  for  better  and  more  favorable  times  for  New  Granada. 

III.  These  promises  were  fallacious,  inasmuch  as  a  new  constitution  was 
adopted  in  1843  which  was  nothing  more  than  a  ciqry  of  the  former  one,  with 
alterations  and  modifications  even  more  despotic  and  centralizing,  and  in 
which  there  was  no  provisions  for  creating  in  Panama  a  government  adequate 
to  its  standing  and  requirements.  The  civil  wars  brought  only  very  short 
periods  of  truce  to  the  distressed  people  and  devoured  with  vertiginous  fury 
the  private  riches  in  search  of  public  wealth. 

But  the  ceaseless  clamor  of  the  Isthmians  and  their  protests,  which  hurst 
forth  at  times  with  relentless  fury,  convinced  the  Granadines  at  last  that  in 
order  to  prevent  Panama — wounded  to  insensibility  by  a  sense  of  danger — 
from  unyoking  herself  from  the  cart  which  was  so  stealthily  being  drawn 
toward  the  abyss,  it  was  necessary  to  grant  her  a  special  government,  formed 
and  organized  by  her  own  people,  with  partial  autonomous  powers,  committing 
to  her  hands  the  charge  of  guiding  this  isolated  region  to  the  goal  of  its 
destinies. 

Our  countrymen  of  a  former  generation  should  have  exclaimed  "better  late 
than  never"  when  the  act  of  February  27,  1855,  was  promulgated,  which  act 
amended  the  Granadine  constitution  of  1853,  under  which  the  sovereign  federal 
State  of  Panama  was  created,  while  all  the  other  Granadine  provinces  remained 
bound  to  the  post  of  centralism. 

The  names  of  the  illustrious  citizens  who  filled  the  executive  office  in  Panama 
from  1855  to  1860 — Justo  Arosemena,  Francisco  de  Fabrega.  Bartolome  Calvo, 
R-:m6n  Gamboa,  Rafael  Nunez,  and  Jose  de  Obaldia — justify  the  affirmation 
that  the  administration  of  the  government  in  that  territory  during  said  period 
of  five  years  resulted  in  all  the  good  that  could  reasonably  be  expected  of  it. 
It  proved,  nevertheless,  insufficient  to  satisfy  the  patriotic  aspirations  of  the 
people  and  to  remedy  the  evils  which  oppressed  the  Isthmus,  inasmuch  as  the 
sovereignty  granted  to  the  State  was  illusory,  since,  in  fact,  it  was  limited  by 
powerful  restrictions,  which  maintained  between  the  State  and  the  Nation  the 
bond  that  unites  the  serf  to  the  lord  whose  plans  he  follows  and  to  whom  he 
must  give  the  best  he  possesses  as  an  inexcusable  tribute. 

In  1858  the  federation  of  New  Granada  was  established  in  a  general  manner, 
but  the  following  year  it  was  thought  necessary  to  lower  the  sails  for  fear  that 
the  ship  of  state  would  take  with  too  much  impetus  a  direction  that  many 
thought  dangerous  to  the  power  of  the  central  government.  In  1859  the  na- 
tional congress  passed  several  laws,  among  them  an  election  law.  which  greatly 
abridged  the  powers  granted  to  the  States  and  which  was  in  conflict  with  the 
federal  constitution  of  1858. 

The  State  of  ('aura,  led  by  General  Mosquera.  rose  in  rebellion,  disavowing 
the  laws  which  threatened  its  liberties  and  refusing  obedience  to  the  Govern- 
ment at  Bogota.  Immediately  thereafter  Bolivar.  Santander,  and  other  States 
rebelled,  taking  for  their  standard  the  conquests  of  fhe  federation,  and  a  des- 
perate and  terrible  struggle  between  the  political  parties  of  the  Granadine  Con- 
federation ensued. 

During  that  bloody  revolution,  which  was  prolonged  even  after  the  triumphant 
entrance  of  General  Mosquera  into  Bogota,  the  State  of  Panama  remained  com- 
paratively quiet,  inasmuch  as  there  only  occurred,  on  September  27,  1SG0,  the 
pronunciamiento  of  Gen.  Buenaventura  Correoso  and  other  companies,  directed, 
not  against  the  president  of  the  State,  but  against  the  intendent.  Mr.  Jos6 
Marceliuo  Hurtado,  who  was  acting  as  agent  of  the  president  of  the  the  con- 
federation, Mr.  Mariano  Ospina,  and  endeavored  to  involve  the  Isthmus  in  the 
conflict  by  assisting  the  cause  of  the  Government  which  he  served. 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA   CANAL.  523 

Simultaneously  with  the  pronuneiamiento  of  General  Correoso,  a  new  agita- 
tion was  commenced  among  the  people  of  the  Isthmus  directed  toward  its 
separation  from  the  Granadine  Confederation.  The  distinguished  citizen  and 
illustrious  patriot,  Mr.  Jose  de  Obaldia.  from  the  high  position  which  he  occu- 
pied, had  categorically  declared,  in  a  circular  which  bears  his  signature,  dated 
June  4.  1860,  that  the  Isthmus,  in  order  to  insure  its  welfare,  had  no  other 
course  than  that  which  he  would  adopt  of  freeing  itself  forever  from  the  dis- 
organized Granadine  Confederation.1  The  people  were  ardently  engaged  in 
fomenting  a  movement  which  was  to  give  to  the  Isthmus  an  autonomous  govern- 
ment under  the  protectorate  of  the  United  States  of  North  America,  of  France, 
and  of  England,  who  found  the  intent  justifiable.  This  city,  that  of  Sanitago  de 
Veraguas,  where  the  famous  Isthmian,  Mr.  Francisco  de  Fabrega,  exercised  a 
merited  influence,  and  other  towns  in  the  interior  of  the  Isthmus,  were  active 
centers  of  the  secessionist  movement. 

There  was  no  lack  of  Panamans,  as  discreet  as  optimistic,  who,  confiding  in 
the  foresight  and  wisdom  of  the  leaders  of  the  republic,  extinguished  the  ardor 
of  the  rebels  with  the  coldness  of  their  counsel. 

General  Mosquera,  having  already  occupied  Bogota,  under  the  title  of  pro- 
visional President  of  the  United  States  of  New  Granada,  addressed,  under  date 
of  August  3.  1861,  to  the  governor  of  Panama,  Mr.  Santiago  de  la  Guardia,  au 
interesting  message,  in  which  he  complained  of  the  attitude  taken  against  him 
by  Mr.  Jose  de  Obaldia,  and  referring  to  the  latter,  said  : 

"The  enunciation  of  these  facts  will  show  to  you.  Mr.  Governor,  the  degree 
of  responsibility  which  your  predecessor  incurred.  His  policy  left  the  position 
which  the  inhabitants  of  the  State  have  intrusted  to  you  full  of  difficulties. 
And  while  his  conduct  as  an  official  placed  the  Isthmus  in  a  difficult  predica- 
ment, the  very  same  citizen  comes  now,  in  his  private  character  and  promotes 
the  secession  of  the  State,  thus  breaking  the  fraternal  bonds  which  perpetually 
unite  it  with  all  others  in  the  union,  and  depriving  it  in  this  way  of  the  future 
awaiting  it  when  becoming,  if  not  the  capital,  the  center  of  a  great  confederacy 
in  the  world  of  Columbus." 

And    then  added: 

"  I  trust.  Mr.  Governor,  that  in  reply  to  the  letter  you  will  advise  me  that 
the  State  of  Panama  is  united  to  the  other  States,  and  that  you  will  send  the 
plenipotentiary  who  is  to  take  a  seat  in  the  Congress,  the  convocation  of  which 
I   communicate   to   you." 

The  great  revolution,  led  by  General  Mosrpiera,  had  almost  dissolved  the 
political  and  social  bom's  which  united  the  different  ethnical  portions  of  the 
nation.  The  States  of  Cauca  and  Bolivar,  for  the  purpose  of  mutually  assist- 
ing each  other,  had  formed  a  compact  by  means  of  a  treaty  dated  September  10, 
I860,  and  adopted  the  name  of  United  States  of  New  Granada,  and  there  was 
a  tendency  in  each  section  to  organize  itself  as  it  thought  fit. 

The  occasion  was  favorable  for  Panama  to  constitute  itself  into  a  free  and 
independent  State.  The  prasident.  Don  Santiago  de  la  Guardia,  a  loyal 
Isthmian,  and  an  enthusiastic  secessionist,  realized  clearly  the  advantages  of 
the  situation,  but  he  did  not  resolve  to  carry  out  the  plan,  because  he  expected 
to  obtain  the  unanimous  consent  of  all  Isthmians  without  dissent.  Yet.  realiz- 
ing the  sincere  and  powerful  feeling  of  the  humiliated  people  by  whom  he  was 
surrounded,  who  were  inclined  to  struggle  for  their  freedom,  he  deemed  it  his 
duty  to  take  advantage  of  that  occasion  to  declare,  in  the  name  of  the  people 
he  governed,  that  the  Isthmus  would  not  again  unite  itself  to  the  Granadine 
nation,  unless  under  conditions  which  would  allow  it  to  enjoy  the  autonomy 
which  its  welfare  demanded. 

Animated  by  such  a  spirit,  he  concluded  an  agreement  in  the  city  of  Colon  on 
the  6th  day  of  September,  1861.  with  Don  Manuel  Murillo,  an  eminent  public 
man.  sent,  for  that  purpose,  by  the  president  of  the  nation.  Such  agreement  was 
to  be  submitted  to  the  legislature  of  the  State,  and  in  it  were  stated,  by  way  of 
stipulations,  the  demands  made  by  the  Isthmus  in  order  for  it  to  continue  united 
to  the  Granadine  nation. 

The  text  of  said  agreement  is  as  follows: 

"The  undersigned,  Santiago  de  la  Guardia.  governor  of  the  State  of  Panama, 
on  the  one  side,  and  Manuel  Murillo  Toro.  commissioner  of  the  Government  of 
the  United  States  of  New  Granada,  on  the  other  side,  in  view  of  the  circum- 
stances under  which  the  territory  of  the  late  Granadine  confederation  finds 

1  Felipe  Perez,  Anales  de  la  Revolucion. 


524  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

itself  at  present,  and  considering  the  necessity  of  putting  an  end  to  the  anoma- 
lous condition  of  this  State,  whose  best  interests  require  the  recognition  of  a 
national  government  and  the  making  of  a  compact  of  union  wherein  the  federal 
principles,  properly  so  called,  should  be  duly  acknowledged,  have  agreed,  to  con- 
clude the  following  arrangement,  the  execution  of  which  shall  depend  upon  the 
approval  referred  to  in  the  last  article  of  the  same. 

"Art.  1.  The  sovereign  State  of  Panama  incorporates  itself  into  the  new 
national  entity  called  United  States  of  New  Granada,  and  consequently  becomes 
one  of  the  sovereign  federal  States  composing  the  aforesaid  confederation  under 
the  terms  of  the  treaty  celebrated  at  Cartagena  on  September  10,  1S60,  between 
the  plenipotentiaries  of  the  States  of  Bolivar  and  Cauca,  to  wbich  the  State  of 
Panama  adheres,  with  the  sole  reservations  and  conditions  stipulated  in  the 
following  articles : 

"Art.  2.  In  conformity  with  the  decree  of  the  20th  of  July  last,  supplementing 
that  of  the  22d  of  March  previous,  the  State  of  Panama  shall  send  to  the 
capital  of  the  United  States  of  New  Granada  a  representative  to  the  congress  of 
plenipotentiaries  for  the  purpose  of  ratifying  the  compact  of  union,  and  calling 
a  national  convention  to  frame  the  constitution,  and  shall  thereby  become  a 
member  of  the  aforesaid  United  States.  But  the  State,  in  use  of  its  sovereignty, 
reserves  the  right  to  approve  or  disapprove  the  new  compact,  and  the  constitu- 
tion whicb  gives  expression  to  it,  if,  in  its  judgment,  the  principles  established 
in  the  treaty  of  Cartagena  of  September  10,  supplemented  by  the  present  one, 
are  violated  to  the  detriment  of  the  autonomy  of  the  States,  or  if  the  neutrality 
granted  the  Isthmus  by  the  treaty  with  the  United  States  of  North  America,  in 
cases  of  international  war,  is  not  recognized  in  case  of  domestic  struggles,  civil 
wars,  or  revolts  which  may  arise  in  the  rest  of  the  United  States. 

"  Consequently,  and  in  order  to  more  clearly  understand  tbe  treaty  of  Sep- 
tember 10  between  the  States  of  Bolivar  and  Cauca,  it  is  peremptorily  stipu- 
lated : 

"  1.  That  there  shall  be  in  the  State  of  Panama  no  other  public  employees 
with  jurisdiction  or  command  except  those  authorized  by  the  laws  of  the  State. 
who  shall  at  the  same  time  act  as  agents  of  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  of  New  Granada  in  all  matters  which  are  or  should  come  under  their 
jurisdiction. 

"  2.  That  the  administration  of  justice  shall  be  independent  in  the  State,  and 
the  acts  of  its  judicial  officers  shall  be  final  and  shall  never  be  subject  to  re- 
vision by  other  officers  in  so  far  as  said  administration  and  said  acts  do  not 
relate  to  affairs  appertaining  to  the  National  Government. 

"8.  The  Government  of  the  United  States  shall  have  no  power  to  militarily 
occupy  any  point  of  the  territory  of  the  State  without  the  express  consent  of 
the  governor  thereof,  provided  the  State  itself  maintains  the  necessary  force 
for  the  protection  of  the  transit  of  either  ocean,  and 

"  4.  That  all  the  revenues,  property,  and  rights  of  the  Granadine  Confedera- 
tion in  the  State  of  Panama  shall  hereafter  belong  to  the  latter  under  the  con- 
ditions stated  in  the  eleventh  clause  of  the  treaty  of  September  10,  1860,  be- 
tween Bolivar  and  Cauca,  except  in  so  far  as  they  may  be  affected  by  the 
obligations,  debts,  and  liabilities  incurred  by  the  Government  of  the  old  Grana- 
dine Confederation  and  now  assumed  by  the  United  States,  on  condition  that 
all  that  the  State  should  have  to  disburse  or  fail  to  perceive  for  such  reason 
be  deducted  from  the  quota  which  it  has  to  contribute  to  the  general  expenses 
of  the  Union,  less  the  value  of  the  public  lands  which  may  have  to  be  disposed 
of  by  virtue  of  former  promises.  No  deduction  shall  be  made  on  account  of 
this   value. 

"Art.  3.  The  territory  of  Panama,  its  inhabitants  and  government,  shall  be 
recognized  as  perfectly  neutral  in  the  civil  wars  or  rebellions  that  may  break 
out  in  the  remaining  portion  of  the  territory  of  the  United  States,  under  the 
conditions  specified  in  article  35  of  the  treaty  with  the  United  States  of  North 
America  and  in  accordance  with  the  neutrality  of  foreign  nations  as  defined 
and  established  by  international  law. 

"Art.  4.  It  is  furthermore  agreed  that  the  neutrality  mentioned  in  the  pre- 
ceding article  shall,  from  now  on,  be  scrupulously  observed.  Therefore  the 
State  shall  take  no  part  whatever,  either  in  favor  of  or  against  the  Government, 
of  the  Union,  while  the  latter  is  attacked  by  the  adherents  of  the  defunct  Con- 
federation and  of  the  Government  which  represented  it.  Nor  shall  the  State 
of  Panama  be  bound  to  contribute  by  means  of  forced  loans  or  special  taxes  in 
order  to  pay  expenses  made  or  to  be  made  in  the  struggle  now  going  on  in  the 
other  States. 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA   CANAL.  525 

"Art.  5.  The  Government  of  the  United  States  of  New  Granada  shall  recog- 
nize the  expenditures  made,  or  ordered  to  be  made,  up  to  the  present  date  in  the 
State  of  Panama  for  government  purposes,  provided  that  they  are  duly  verified 
and  authorized  by  the  laws  which  were  in  force  in  the  Confederation.  The 
Union  shall  likewise  recognize  the  expenditures  which  are  absolutely  essential 
to  discharge  and  send  home  the  men  composing  the  garrison  which,  in  the  name 
or  on  account  of  the  late  Granadine  Confederation,  still  exists  in  the  city  of 
Panama. 

"Art.  6.  Persons  confined  in  jail  or  detained  in  any  other  manner,  with  or 
without  a  trial,  for  causes  arising  out  of  the  civil  war  waged  in  other  States, 
shall  be  given  immediate  and  complete  liberty. 

"Art.  7.  The  vessels,  arms,  and  other  elements  of  war  that  may  have  been 
acquired  with  the  funds  of  the  late  Confederation  shall  be  placed  at  the  disposal 
of  the  Government  of  the  United  States  as  property  of  the  nation. 

"Art.  8.  The  present  agreement  shall  be  submitted  for  examination  and 
approval  to  the  legislative  assembly  of  the  State  of  Panama  at  present  in 
session,  without  which  approbation  said  agreement  shall  not  be  put  in  force. 

"  In  testimony  whereof  we  sign  two  copies  of  the  present  agreement  at  Colon 
on  the  6th  day  of  September,  1861,  which  copies  shall  be  attested  by  the  Secre- 
tary of  State.* 

"  S.  de  la  Guardia. 

"  M.  Murillo. 

"  The  Secretary  of  State, 

"  B.  Arze  Mata. 

The  legislative  assembly  of  the  State  approved  the  treaty  by  a  law  of  October 
35  of  the  same  year,  which  concluded  with  the  following  special  provision  for 
the  purpose  of  protecting  the  interests  of  the  Isthmus : 

«  *  *  *  Tjje  g0vernor  0f  the  State  is  authorized,  upon  the  reestablishment 
of  the  Republic,  to  incorporate  said  State  into  the  Republic:  Provided,  That  the 
same  concessions  made  by  the  agreement  of  September  6  ultimo  are  granted  to 
said  State." 

IV.  Peace  having  been  reestablished  in  the  country  in  1S63,  the  great  national 
convention  to  be  held  and  which  was  held  in  the  city  of  Rio  Negro,  State  of 
Antioquia,  for  the  purpose  of  making  a  new  constitution  for  the  Republic,  was 
called.  Messrs.  Justo  Arosemena,  Buenaventura  Correoso,  Gabriel  Neira. 
Guillermo  Lynch,  Jose  Encarnacion  Brandao  y  Guillermo  Figueroa  attended  said 
constitutional  convention  as  delegates  of  the  Isthmus,  and  these  gentlemen  were 
carried  away,  willingly  or  unwillingly,  by  the  wave  of  enthusiasm  which  sprung 
up  among  the  delegates  when  discussing  the  draft  of  constitution,  iu  which  the 
federal  organization  established  in  the  United  States  of  North  America  was 
adopted  for  the  Republic. 

Without  bearing  in  mind  that  the  happiness  and  progress  produced  in  that 
great  country  by  its  institutions  are  the  result  of  a  combination  of  circum- 
stances quite*  different  from  ours,  the  members  of  the  convention  believed  that 
they  had  discovered  the  wonderful  expression  of  political  perfection,  and 
thought  that  nothing  more  was  necessary  to  secure  for  the  different  entities  of 
the  Republic  the  calm  and  prosperity  so  much  desired  by  them.  The  engage- 
ments entered  into  by  the  Republic  in  favor  of  Panama  in  the  Guardia-Murrillo 
agreement  were  naturally  rejected  by  the  convention  as  undesirable  disturbers 
of  the  harmony  of  the  union. 

The  constitution  of  Rio  Negro  grew  up  as  a  luxuriant  tree  in  the  soil  of  the 
United  States  of  Colombia,  extending  its  branches  over  the  nine  confederated 
entities.  But  soon  afterwards  the  Isthmian  people  discovered  that  this  tree 
was  growing  in  a  stormy  atmosphere,  that  it  was  nourishing  itself  with  poi- 
sonous substances,  and  throwing  an  unwholesome  shade.  They  noticed  at  the 
same  time  that  one  of  its  roots  was  extending  vigorously  and  deeply  in  the 
territory  of  the  Isthmus,  absorbing  its  rich  sap  and  spreading  contagion  of  a 
frightful  disease  which  seems  to  be  congenial  as  well  as  chronic  in  the  Colom- 
bian soil. 

According  to  the  constitution  the  election  of  the  President  of  the  Republic 
was  to  be  made  by  the  vote  of  the  States,  each  State  having  one  vote,  which 
was  that  of  the  majority  of  its  own  electors  under  its  law.  The  Congress,  con- 
sisting of  senators  and  representatives  elected  by  the  States,  was  to  declare 
elected  as  President  the  citizen  who  had  obtained  the  absolute  majority  of  the 
votes  of  the  States. 


526  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA   CANAL. 

Such  principle  established  in  the  supreme  law  and  the  authority  granted  there- 
in to  the  executive  power  of  the  union  to  organize  and  maintain  public  force 
which  was  to  be  at  his  service  in  the  States,  were  causes  which  largely  contrib- 
uted to  the  great  disaster  which  befell  the  whole  Republic,  and  especially  Pan- 
ama, but  the  principal  factor,  the  factor  chiefly  responsible  for  all  the*  evils, 
consisted  in  the  ambition  of  command,  the  political  fanaticism  characterized  by 
a  ferocious  intolerance,  and  the  revolutionary  spirit  accustomed  to  all  kinds  of 
violence  which,  save  in  marked  exceptions,  seem  to  be  inherent  to  the  public 
men  of  Colombia,  whether  civil  or  military. 

Inasmuch  as  the  sectional  governments  exercised  an  inevitable  influence  over 
the  result  of  the  popular  elections,  whenever  the  time  came  to  replace  the  presi- 
dents of  the  States,  or  to  appoint  a  successor  to  the  supreme  commander  of  the 
nation,  or  to  select,  by  the  vote  of  the  people,  the  senators  and  representaiy.es 
who  would  contribute  by  their  votes  in  the  Congress  to  finally  declare  the  elec- 
tion of  said  commander,  the  national  public  force  quartered  in  each  State  de- 
voted itself  with  frenzy  to  the  immoral  and  unlawful  task  of  restraining  or 
violating  the  suffrage  in  order  that  there  might  be  in  the  States,  derisively 
called  sovereign,  only  humble  servants  of  the  controlling  political  circle  at  the 
capial  and  in  order  that  the  final  vote  of  each  section  might  be  given  in  the  di- 
rection most  convenient  to  the  interest  of  such  Bogotanian  political  machine. 

If  we  add  to  the  above  the  fact  that  the  presidential  election  has  been  un- 
wisely and  arbitrarily  regulated  by  short  periods  of  two  years,  it  will  be  easily 
explained  why  the  evil  with  which  the  Colombian  nation  was  afflicted  became 
still  more  serious  and  deep.  None  other  was  the  origin  and  cause  of  the  general 
wars  which  broke  out  with  fury,  the  collisions,  scandals,  headquarter  revolts,  in- 
surrections, the  iniquitous  overthrowing  of  the  regional  presidents,  all  that 
series  of  tragical  and  mournful  events  which  developed  in  the  Isthmus  of  Pan- 
ama during  a  quarter  of  a  century  and  all  of  which  can  be  traced  directly  or  in- 
directly to  the  governors  of  Colombia,  who  caused  the  misfortune  and  unhappi- 
ness  of  the  people  of  this  land. 

All  the  natives  of  Panama  are  aware  of  the  accuracy  of  this  statement,  and 
it  is  only  because  we  fear  that  outside  of  our  territory  our  veracity  may  be 
doubted  that  we  present  the  following  official  and  authentic  testimonials,  taken 
at  random  from  among  a  great  many  other  proofs. 

Let  the  first  be  the  famous  reply,  overflowing  with  indignation,  which  Dr. 
Pablo  Arosemena,  a  distinguished  statesman  of  Panama,  who  was  audaciously 
overthrown  from  the  presidency  of  the  State  because  he  would  not  approve  and 
support  the  electoral  schemes  of  a  president  of  the  nation  addressed  to  Gen. 
Sergio  Carmargo,  who  carried  out  said  outrage  when  the  latter  made  known  to 
the  former  his  (Camargo's)  scandalous  intimation.  Doctor  Arosemena's  reply 
is  as  follows  : 

United  States  of  Colombia.  Sovereign  State  of  Panama, 

Panama,  October  12,  J875. 
To  the  Chief  Commander  of  the  Arm;/  of  the  Union: 

Sir:  I  have  just  received,  with  your  memorandum  of  this  date  which  bears  no 
number,  the  resolution  which  you  have  dictated  to-day,  wherein  you  brand  me 
;>s  an  enemy  of  the  General  Government,  threaten  me  with  arrest,  and  demand 
from  mo  the  disarming  of  the  force  which  protects  and  maintains  my  Govern- 
ment, and  the  surrender  of  all  the  elements  of  war. 

In  spite  of  all  the  outrages  committed  by  the  Government  of  the  Union  and  by 
its  agents,  I  have  been  surprised  by  the  resolution  which  you  communicated  to 
me.  winch  would  cause  a  public  protest  even  in  Turkey,  and  which  has  been 
issued  after  I  had  been  repeatedly  informed  by  you  that  you  would  recognize 
my  Government  as  legitimate,  that  you  would  communicate  with  it,  and  that 
the  rebels  who  might  attack  would  receive  no  help  from  you. 

This  attitude  proves  to  me  that  you  strictly  followed  the  policy  of  the  Govern- 
ment under  which  service  you  are,  which  humiliates  when  it  pretends  to  pro- 
mote, interferes  barefacedly  and  impudently  when  it  pretends  to  yield,  breaks 
into  pieces  the  constitutions  when  it  boasts  of  defending  them,  and  breaks  the 
bonds  of  union  when  it  boasts  and  brags  of  strengthening  them. 

I  refuse  to  become  a  prisoner  in  my  own  house,  as  well  as  to  maintain  the 
arrest  that  you  pretend  to  impose  on  me  by  the  authority  of  the  Colombian 
guard  at  your  command.  Having  no  force  to  resist  you,  I  have  to  limit  myself 
to  protest  against  the  enormous  outrage  of  which  you  make  yourself  respon- 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL.  527 

sible,  and  which  is  nothing  but  a  new  blow  struck  against  the  institutions,  and 
which  shows  the  absence  of  the  spirit  of  justice  and  affords  a  new  stain  to  the 
political  title  which  has  already  reaped  so  abundant  a  harvest  of  this  rare 
laurel. 

I  also  protest  in  the  name  of  my  country,  which  is  to-day  humiliated,  and 
which  in  happier  days  was  also  to  resist  the  liberator  of  five  republics,  the  man 
who  now  lives  in  history  and  who  honored  in  Ouaspud  the  national  colors,  and 
against  this  lost  power  which  has  replaced  the  whole  chapter  of  individual 
guaranties  with  the  right  of  war. 

The  chief  commander  of  the  garrison  will  deliver  to  your  forces  all  the  ele- 
ments of  war  at  his  disposal. 

Pablo  Arosemena. 

That  audacious  act  also  gave  rise  to  the  following  protest  of  the  legislative 
assembly  of  the  State: 

"  The  legislative  assembly  of  the  sovereign  State  of  Panama  : 

"  Whereas  by  the  imprisonment  imposed  on  the  constitutional  president  of  the 
State  by  Gen.  Sergio  Camargo,  general  in  chief  of  the  Colombian  guards,  sup- 
ported by  the  national  forces,  said  distinguished  citizen  can  not  fulfill  his 
function ; 

"  Whereas  the  same  general  has  substituted  a  de  facto  government  for  the  con- 
stitutional government,  ignoring  the  alternates; 

"Whereas  in  the  absence  of  the  constitutional  president  the  assembly  has  no 
one  with  whom  it  may  communicate  constitutionally  for  the  sanction  of  the 
laws ; 

"  Whereas  the  Colombian  guard  has  given  earnest  aid  to  the  rebels  against  the 
legitimate  government  of  the  State,  in  violation  of  the  national  law  of  April  16, 
1867,  on  public  order ; 

"Whereas  the  attack  of  the  sovereignty  of  the  State  and  the  change  of  gov- 
ernment was  effected  by  the  Colombian  guard. 

"Be  it  resolved.  To  protest,  as  it  does  protest,  before  the  nation  and  as  be- 
comes the  honor  of  the  State,  against  the  outrage  committed  by  the  chief  of  the 
Colombian  guard  by  the  imprisonment  of  the  constitutional  president,  changing 
the  government  of  the  latter  for  a  de  facto  government  and  destroying  the 
sovereignty  of  the  State,  which  from  this  moment  is  left  at  the  mercy  of  the 
chief  of  said  Colombian  guard  and  of  the  revolutionists  whom  it  has  welcomed 
under  its  protection,  to  denounce  the  outrage  to  the  Federal  powers  and  to  the 
governments  of  the  other  States  of  the  Union,  and  to  suspend  its  ordinary  ses- 
sions until  the  constitutional  regimen  shall  prevail  again  in  the  country. 

"  Panama,  October  12,  1875. 

"  J.  M.  Alzamora,  J.  M.  Casis,  Claudio  J.  Carvajal,  Joaquin  Arose- 
mena, Waldino  Arosemena,  Manuel  Paulino  Ocana,  J.  Bracho, 
Manuel  Marcelino,  Herrera,  Mateo  Iturralde,  Domingo  Diaz, 
Francisco  Olaciregui,  B.  Vallarino,  Alejandro  Arce,  Carlos  Y. 
Arosemena,  C.  Arosemena,  Jose  E.  Braudao,  Antonio  Maria  Esca- 
lona,  Jose  Maques." 

In  1882  the  president  of  the  State.  Senor  Da  ma  so  Cervera.  in  his  message  to 
the  assembly,  briefly  described  in  the  following  eloquent  terms  the  situation 
created  on  the  Isthmus: 

"  *  *  *  As  will  be  readily  understood,  the  result  of  a  frank  and  friendly 
policy  .were  necessarily  favorable  to  the  order  and  the  stability  of  the  govern- 
ment of  the  State,  which  generally  was  the  victim  of  the  improper  influence  of 
public  officers  of  the  nation  who  were  sometimes  purposely  and  premeditatedly 
appointed,  without  due  regard  to  the  permanent  interests  of  the  country,  and, 
what  is  still  worse,  with  the  deliberate  purpose  of  annoying  or  attacking  the 
government  of  the  State. 

"  Many  and  very  frequent  have  been  the  scandals  by  which  a  Federal  policy, 
different  from  that  recently  put  in  practice,  have  taken  away  from  this  privileged 
soil  even  the  hope  of  obtaining  a  tranquil,  peaceful  life  under  the  protection  of 
the  law.  And  the  worst  of  it  all  is  that  to  Panama  has  almost  always  been 
charged  before  the  civilized  world  the  serious  sin  of  the  responsibility  of  these 
acts,  and  this  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  but  for  the  generally  noble  nature  and 
character  of  its  sons,  the  habits  of  work  and  activity  would  have  been  lost  and 
the  most  trivial  of  public  good  would  have  been  unknown,  carrying  us. surely 
to  barbarism. 


528  DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

"  The  administration  of  the  State  in  1878  has  already  knowledge  of  the  great 
irregularities  which  were  the  direct  cause  of  the  most  serious  disorders  in 
Panama.     *     *     *  " 

In  the  following  year,  in  another  message,  with  an  optimistic  spirit,  he  said : 

"  I  think  that  the  time  in  which  the  Colombian  guard  used  to  overthrow 
constitutional  government  has  passed,  but  so  long  as  the  law  on  public  order  is 
subject  to  captions  interpretations  by  the  officer  charged  with  the  enforcement 
thereof,  the  national  governments,  which  are  exclusively  supported  on  such 
force,  are  liable  to  succumb  when  least  expected,  should  it  be  convenient  to  the 
political  interests  of  the  chief  of  the  union." 

Upon  the  investigation  of  the  general  causes  of  the  unfortunate  condition  of 
Colombia,  Sefior  Victorina  Lastarria,  an  impartial  Chilean  writer,  in  a  book 
published  in  lstiT,  expressed  his  opinion,  which  was  reproduced  as  a  true  one  in 
El  Porvenir  of  Cartagena  in  1886,  and  of  which  opinion  we  will  rpiote  here  only 
the  following  paragraph: 

"  *  *  *  rji0  this  should  be  added  the  absolute  lack  of  notions  and  habits  of 
justice  and  morality  in  people  educated  under  a  regimen  in  which  everything 
was  justified  by  law  or  force,  and  we  will  have  an  explanation  of  the  frenzy  and 
cruelty  with  which  parties  have  been  persecuted,  and  how  easily  have  they 
thought  lawful  every  means  of  hostility,  every  exclusion,  every  attack  on  the 
rights  of  others,  even  by  men  who,  because  of  their  personal  integrity,  would  not 
in  their  private  relations  allow  such  acts.  This  lack  of  political  integrity  and 
that  lack  of  respect  for  the  opinions  and  interests  of  adversaries,  constitute  two 
reminiscences  of  the  Spanish  civilization  which  have  neutralized  the  democratic 
conditions  of  the  Colombian  people  and  which  have  given  to  its  revolutions  an 
atrocious  character  and  a  singular  demoralization  which  deprives  the  institu- 
tions and  the  reforms  of  all  their  value." 

And  in  1862  Dr.  Rafael  Nunez,  who  was  about  to  be  elected  for  the  fourth 
time  to  the  presidency  of  the  Republic,  in  order  to  influence  the  people  toward 
the  reform  in  the  institutions  which  he  advocated,  summed  up  the  political  his- 
tory of  Colombia    in  the  following  significant  conclusion : 

"  In  the  course  of  nearly  forty  years  of  our  political  life  since  1832,  the  main- 
tenance of  public  order  has  been,  I  regret  to  say,  the  exception,  and  civil  war  the 
general  rule." 

If,  in  a  political  sense,  the  guardianship  of  Colombia  was  so  fatal  to  the  Isth- 
mus, it  was  not  less  so  in  an  economic  and  fiscal  sense.  The  institutions  only  left 
to  the  State  property  and  revenues  of  scant  importance  to  meet  its  most  pre- 
emptory  wants,  while  the  nation  enjoyed  the  most  valuable  receipts  and  reve- 
nues. The  Isthmus  being  most  advantageously  situated  for  carrying  on  the 
trade  of  the  world,  it  seemed  fair  to  let  it  enjoy  to  a  sufficient  extent  those  means 
of  prosperity  with  which  she  was  bountifully  endowed  by  nature.  But  it  was 
not  without  great  efforts  that  the  Isthmus  obtained  the  right  to  receive  one-tenth 
of  the  revenues  derived  from  the  interoceanic  railway;  and  as  regards  the  con- 
tracts made  for  excavating  the  canal  in  our  territory,  the  Isthmus  was  excluded 
from  all  participation  in  the  immense  profits  which  said  contracts  have  produced 
to  the  Colombian  nation. 

.  Under  the  Federal  regime  of  1863  to  1SS5  the  secession  spirit  of  the  Isthmus 
was  not  openly  revealed.  It  was  calmed,  but  this  fact  should  be  considered  at 
least  until  1878  as  one  of  the  rare  phenomena  of  the  mad  intoxication  that  the 
people  found  at  the  bottom  of  the  golden  cup  which  was  perfidiously  offered 
them  under  the  name  of  sovereignty  of  the  States,  and  after  that  year  as  a  result 
of  the  hope  which  the  contract  for  the  opening  of  the  canal  made  with  Mr.  N.  B. 
Wyseled  the  Isthmians  to  entertain,  and  the  favorable  consequences  of  which  to 
our  independence  we  shall  take  into  consideration  hereinafter. 

In  the  fifteen  years  preceding  the  celebration  of  said  contract  the  Isthmians 
lived  an  artificial  and  fallacious  life,  in  which  they  lost  sight  of  their  true  in- 
terests and  their  traditional  tendencies. 

V.  While  a  large  immigration  of  men  of  all  races  and  countries  was  flowing 
into  the  Isthmus,  attracted  by  the  great  work  of  the  canal,  which  was  already 
in  progress,  and  when  the  well-paid  work  came  to  relieve  the  condition  even 
of  the  poorest  classes,  there  was  initiated  in  the  nation  the  propaganda  of  an 
army  of  statesmen,  at  the  head  of  which  appeared  Dr.  Rafael  Nunez,  advocating 
with  a  stentorian  voice  a  fundamental  regeneration  in  order  to  prevent  a  political 
catastrophe,  and  holding  the  federation  responsible  for  all  the  evils  which 
afflicted  the  country. 

There  was  a  tremendous  social  convulsion  in  the  Republic,  followed  by  a 
frightful  butchery  and  a  change  in  the  institutions. 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE    PANAMA   CANAL.  529 

We  then  returned  to  the  regime  of  centralization  which  prevailed  in  1843. 
To  the  political  organism  of  the  nation  there  was  again  given  the  contexture  of 
a  gigantic  octopus,  having  powerful  and  innumerable  tentacles  spread  all  over 
the  country,  of  which  the  monster  made  use  in  order  to  smother  the  slightest 
manifestation  of  autonomous  life  in  the  municipalities  and  to  devour  their  very 
substance. 

There  also  occurred  in  this  city,  in  the  crisis  of  1SS5  and  1886,  serious  dis- 
turbances which  were  episodes  incident  to  the  bloody  national  tragedy ;  but  it 
is  obvious  that  the  new  order  of  things  found  the  Isthmians  with  the  black  flag 
of  political  skepticism  raised  over  all  their  homes.  Thus  it  found  them,  unde- 
ceived by  all  the  vain  promises  and  pompous  theories  with  which  the  orators, 
statesmen,  and  governors  of  Colombia  had  quieted  their  spirits. 

And  as  the  streams  of  the  Pactolus  which  the  canal  company  brought  to  this 
territory  flowered  incessantly,  the  Isthmians  established  themselves  on  the 
margin  of  this  marvelous  river  for  the  purpose  of  securing  personal  prosperity 
with  the  material  means  at  their  disposal.  But  few  of  the  Isthmians  interested 
themselves  or  participated  in  public  affairs,  with  which  the  masses  were  not  at 
all  concerned,  leaving  such  matters  to  the  will  of  the  Colombians,  who  had  made 
of  them  a  lucrative  business.  Yv'ho,  then,  could  believe  any  longer  in  either  the 
efficiency  of  centralism  or  federalism,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  both  systems  had 
already  been  tried,  with  disastrous  results  to  Pauama  because  of  the  political 
incompetency  and  bad  faith  of  the  governors  of  Colombia?  Were  they  not  the 
same  men,  and  their  political  successors  and  disciples  those  who  were  to  enforce 
the  laws?  Why  attempt  to  influence  the  destinies  of  the  country  when  the 
Isthmus,  as  a  political  entity,  was  only  a  member  the  health  of  which  depended 
on  the  hopelessly  diseased  body  to  which  it  was  linked? 

There  was  a  novelty  in  the  constitution  of  18S6,  namely,  the  extraordinary 
article  201,  in  conformity  with  which  the  Department  of  Panama  was  "  subjected 
to  the  direct  authority  of  the  Central  Government  and  governed  in  accordance 
with   special   laws." 

It  remains  to  be  determined  whether  the  majority  of  the  legislature  which 
established  such  special  laws  acted  with  an  honest  or  dishonest  intention  toward 
the  Isthmus;  but  the  truth  is  that  the  said  constitutional  article  did  nothing  but 
oppress  Panama,  establishing  in  it  a  dictatorship  of  the  most  odious  sort.  This 
Department  was  then  left  in  a  worse  condition  than  the  others.  Our  assemblies, 
governors,  corporations,  and  employees  of  all  grades  only  exercised  the  most 
urgent  functions  which  the  governors  of  Bogota  had  the  mercy  or  the  meanness 
to  grant  them.  The  chapter  of  individual  guaranties,  like  the  rights  guaranteed 
by  the  constitution  to  Colombians,  did  not  exist  for  the  isthmians.  Such  a  life 
was  unbearable  to  the  people,  and  in  1S94,  after  a  great  struggle,  we  succeeded 
in  obtaining  the  repeal  of  such  an  odious  provision. 

The  generosity  which  inspired  the  members  of  the  Congress  of  Colombia  on 
repealing  article  201  of  the  constitution — which  article  may  be  called  the  Pana- 
ma article — can  be  gauged  by  the  text  of  the  law  that  abolished  the  same,  and 
which   reads  as  follows: 

[Law  41   (November  6),  amending  article  201  of  the  constitution,  and  clause  4  of  article 

76  of  same.] 

The   Congress   of  Colombia   decrees: 

Sole  article.  Let  article  201  of  the  constitution,  and  section  4  of  article  76  of 
said  constitution,  be  repealed.  Consequently,  the  general  laws  of  the  Republic 
shall  also  be  applicable  to  the  Department  of  Panama. 

§  In  revenue  matters,  legislative,  executive,  and  special  regulations  may  be 
issued  for  the  Department  of  Panama. 
Given  at  Bogota  September  3,  1892. 

Jose  Domingo  Ospina  C, 

President  of  the  Senate. 
Enrique  de  Narvaez, 

Cleric  of  the  Senate. 
Adriano  TribIn, 
Speaker  of  the  House  of  Representatives. 
Miguel  A.  Penaredonda, 
Cleric  of  the  House  of  Representatives. 

It  was  our  lot  to  have  a  most  excruciating  experience  and  to  realize  the  pro- 
found truth  contained  in  this  principle  of  constitutional  law,  taught  by  the  most 
eminent  jurists  of  the  world;  that  all  systems  of  government,  even  those  which 

42112— S.  Doc.  474,  63-2 34 


530  DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

are  intrinsically  the  best,  are  bad  if  tbey  are  to  be  put  in  practice  by  men  who 
have  not  at  heart  the  public  welfare,  who  are  not  familiar  with  the  character  of 
the  people  or  with  their  instincts,  and  who  do  not  take  into  consideration 
their  wants  and  ambitions. 

The  only  possible  salvation  in  sight  for  this  territory  was  the  opening  of  the 
canal,  because  this  work,  which  was  destined  to  satisfy  the  industrial  wants  of 
the  people  of  the  whole  world,  would  place  us  under  the  vigilance  of  powerful 
and  civilized  nations  which,  in  the  logical  course  of  events,  would  eventually 
exercise  on  us  a  collective  and  beneficial  protectorate ;  would  rescue  us  more  or 
less  from  the  power  of  the  multitude  of  aliens  in  whose  hands  we  foolishly 
placed  ourselves  in  1S21  ;  or  they  would  cure  the  evils  of  said  adventurers  by 
the  most  advanced,  scientific,  and  governmental  processes. 

That  solution  was  considered  as  an  equivalent  of  a  virtual  emancipation  from 
the  Colombian  metropolis,  and  for  that  reason  the  spirit  of  secession  was  not 
again  revealed  frankly  and  openly,  as  had  been  shown  on  previous  occasions, 
while  there  was  hope  of  obtaining  such  a  natural  and  peaceful  termination. 

The  interoceanic  canal  was  to  be  our  redemption.  Whether  they  acted  by 
instinct,  by  presentiment,  by  conviction,  or  by  the  clearest  evidence  of  the  future 
blessings  to  which  we  have  referred,  the  fact  is  that  there  has  been  not  a  single 
sensible  Isthmian  who  had  not  based  his  hopes  of  peace  and  prosperity  on  the 
opening  of  the  prodigious  interoceanic  canal,  and  who  did  not  consider  himself 
bound  to  do  all  that  was  possible  for  him  to  do  in  order  that  the  great  work 
should  be  carried  to  a  successful  termination. 

Hence  the  clamorous  petitions,  the  earnest  propaganda,  the  plebiscites,  the 
delegations  of  prominent  men  sent  to  Bogota,  all  tho^e  manifestations  by  means 
of  which  the  Isthmus  signified  to  the  Government  of  Colombia  its  desire  that 
the  French  canal  company  requested  the  extension  of  time  which  it  asked  in 
order  to  meet  its  obligations  and  which  the  great  bankruptcy  of  1889  had  ren- 
dered necessary. 

At  last  it  was  discovered  that  the  said  French  company  did  not  have  at  its 
disposal  sufficient  means  to  open  said  route,  but  the  feeling  of  stupor  that  such 
discovery  might  have  produced  on  the  Isthmus  was  neutralized  by  the  announce- 
ment that  the  Government  of  the  United  States  of  North  America,  realizing  at 
last  the  advantage  of  our  route  over  that  of  Nicaragua,  by  reason  of  the  foreign 
protection  of  said  great  nation,  and  by  reason  also  of  the  necessity  of  develop- 
ing its  great  wealth,  consented  to  take  charge  of  the  execution  of  the  great 
work,  provided  that  suitable  and  fair  agreements  be  made  with  the  company 
holding  the  concession  and  the  Government  of  Colombia. 

The  stockholders  of  the  French  company  overcame  the  difficulties  and  an 
agreement  was  made,  subject  only  to  the  consent  of  the  Republic  of  Colombia. 

Inasmuch  as  in  the  Salgar-Wyse  contract  it  had  been  stipulated  that  the  con- 
cession could  not  be  transferred  to  any  foreign  government,  and  since,  on  the 
other  hand,  the  written  law  of  Colombia  declares  that  said  governments  are 
judicially  incapable  of  acquiring  real  estate  in  the  territory  of  the  Republic, 
the  permission  to  make  the  transfer  had  to  be  granted  exclusively  by  the  Con- 
gress in  which  lies  the  power  to  repeal  or  amend  the  laws. 

The  will  of  that  sovereign  body  could  not  be  sounded  on  so  important  a  mat- 
ter except  by  means  of  an  agreement  ad  referendum  made  between  the  gov- 
ernors of  the  two  contracting  nations,  which  agreement,  after  being  ratified  by 
the  legislators  of  both  countries,  would  assume  the  character  of  a  solemn  public 
treaty. 

The  Hay-Herran  treaty  was  made  and  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  of 
North  America  immediately  approved  it;  but  not  so  the  Senate  of  Colombia, 
which,  against  all  reasonable  expectation,  disregarding  the  immense  benefits 
which  the  treaty  would  bring  to  the  Republic,  without  any  regard  for  the  great 
interests  of  the  United  States  of  North  America  and  those  of  France,  guided 
by  a  foolish  pride  and  an  antiquated  notion  of  patriotism,  vetoed  it  in  an  indig- 
nant and  emphatic  manner  which  was  equivalent  to  a  foolish  challenge  to  tha 
civilization  and  progress  of  the  world. 

Quicquid  delirant  reges,  plectuntur  Achivi :  "When  kings  blunder,  the  people 
are  the  victims." 

The  opposition  to  said  treaty  resounded  throughout  the  isthmian  territory  like 
the  awful  announcement  of  an  imminent  cataclysm,  because  it  was  known  that 
the  rival  route  via  Nicaragua  had  in  North  America  bold  and  earnest  friends 
for  whom  the  attitude  of  the  Colombian  Senate  has  just  helped  to  win  the  game, 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  531 

and  because,  simultaneously  with  the  decision  of  said  body  of  legislators  came 
the  election  of  the  President  of  the  Republic,  and  there  were  heard  sinister 
voices  announcing  a  new  conflict,  and  all  eyes  were  turned  with  fear  to  the 
former  prosperous  villages  and  luxuriant  fields  of  the  Isthmus,  which  were 
converted  by  the  l;ist  war  into  the  devastated  department  of  a  vast  necropolis. 

The  hour  had  come.  The  people  of  the  Isthmus,  after  suffering  the  agonies 
of  eighty  years,  received  from  their  masters  the  death  sentence. 

But  desperation  works  wonders.  It,  like  faith,  moves  mountains,  and  at 
times,  also,  by  a  tremendous  effort,  breaks  them  to  pieces.  The  longing  for  lib- 
erty, a  long  time  suppressed  and  silent,  though  it  was  noticeable  in  the  feelings 
of  the  masses  like  those  fire  streams  which  burn  the  very  depths  of  the  planets, 
finally  bursting  to  the  surface  with  indomitable  force  to  blow  to  a  distance  the 
power  which  weighed  with  overwhelming  heaviness  on  this  virile  and  generous 
people. 

VI.  Suspicious  and  wicked  men  will  perhaps  accuse  the  United  States  of  North 
America  of  having  stimulated  the  insurrection  on  the  Isthmus;  but  such  a  false 
and  vile  charge  shall  not  stain  the  immaculate  glory  of  this  blissful  moment 
and  sacred  hour  in  which  the  nations  of  the  world  salute  with  gladness  the 
advent  of  the  new  Republic,  and  praise  the  wonderful  civic  valor  of  its  founders. 

Whoever  reads  this  long  statement  of  facts  will  realize  that  the  secession 
tendency  has  been  transmitted  with  the  strength  of  an  almost  secular  tradition 
from  generation  to  generation  in  this  Central  American  region,  and  that  to 
it  the  most  notable  Isthmians  of  all  times  have  offered  enthusiastic  devotion. 
Whoever  calmly  studies  the  great  political  transformation  which  has  just  been 
effected  on  the  Isthmus  of  Panama,  and  examines  the  causes  which  produced 
it,  will  clearly  see  that  an  act  of  such  magnitude  and  of  such  great  social  con- 
sequences can  have  no  other  origin  than  spontaneous  and  unanimous  feeling  of 
the  people,  who  with  a  wise  instinct  seek  their  own  welfare,  and  that  such  act 
and  the  way  that  it  has  been  accomplished  excludes  all  idea  of  foreign  inter- 
vention. 

Showing  the  qualities  of  statesmanship  that  had  not  been  suspected  in  Co- 
lombia, the  Isthmians  have  done  nothnig  but  follow  in  the  critical  moment  the 
signs  of  the  time;  to  estimate  with  a  sound  judgment  the  quality,  the  number, 
and  the  power  of  the  elements  that  might  favor  their  independence;  to  foresee 
the  emergencies  and  to  act  with  the  faith  and  resolution  which  a  lofty  purpose 
inspires  without  hesitating  before  the  tremendous  consequences  of  a  possible 
failure.  The  decisive  step  was  taken,  without  reckoning  with  the  guarantees 
of  the  promises  or  obligations  of  any  foreign  power,  because  it  was  obvious  that 
such  step  would  deserve  the  applause  and  favor  not  only  of  the  great  North 
American  Republic,  which  was  about  to  break  its  relations  with  Colombia, 
and  which  is  the  natural  and  remarkable  protector  of  all  the  oppressed  peoples 
of  this  continent,  but  also  of  the  other  nations,  all  of  which  have  such  great 
interests  in  our  territory  and  which  have  just  been  so  rashly  slighted  by  the 
Government  of  Colombia. 

Those  interests,  which  are  also  ours,  should  be  and  have  been  the  main 
reason  for  an  alliance,  which  is  none  the  less  effective  because  it  is  not  written, 
and  which  shall  secure  in  a  permanent  way  the  independence  and  prosperity  of 
our  Republic. 

All  praise  to  the  men  who  wisely  conducted  the  movement  and  carried  it  out 
with  such  great  success!  All  praise  to  the  people  who,  in  order  to  obtain  their 
political  liberty,  did  not  resort  to  a  process  of  extermination,  nor  even  spilled  a 
single  drop  of  blood  ! 

In  order  to  corroborate  the  long  enumeration  that  we  have  made  of  the  in- 
ternal causes  which  were  the  origin  and  which  justify  the  final  separation  of 
the  Isthmus  from  the  nation  to  which  it  has  belonged,  we  will  quote  here  the 
following  impressive  words  which  we  invite  the  world  to  ponder,  and  which 
we,  from  a  chair  of  the  Colombian  Congress,  clearly  and  distinctly  heard  pro- 
nounced by  Don  Jose  Manuel  Marroqufn,  the  present  President  of  that  Re- 
public, on  the  7th  of  August.  1898,  in  the  solemn  act  of  taking  the  oath  of  office: 
*  *  *  Hatred,  envy,  and  greed  cause  men  to  differ  in  their  opinions. 
In  the  political  sphere  where  we  struggle  with  earnestness  not  so  much  in  order 
to  obtain  a  triumph  of  principles  as  we  do  for  sinking  or  raising  men  and 
parties,  public  tranquillity,  so  essential  in  order  that  every  citizen  may  enjoy 
in  contentment  the  welfare  which  it  has  been  his  lot  to  secure,  or  which  is  the 
result  of  his  labor,  is  becoming  unknown  among  us.     We  live  a  sickly  life; 


532  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

political  crises  are  our  normal  condition  ;  commerce  and  industry  lack  the  peace- 
ful condition  which  they  require  in  order  to  advance.  Poverty  is  knocking  at 
all  doors." 

******* 

•'Our  political  disturbances  have  caused  the  conception  of  country  to  be 
annulled  or  mistaken.  The  idea  which  we  have  of  country  is  associated  in  such 
manner  to  political  revolts  and  with  the  fears  and  distrust  engendered  thereby, 
that  it  is  not  an  uncommon  thing  to  hear  from  one  of  our  countrymen  what  we 
would  not  hear  from  a  native  of  any  other  country,  viz,  '  I  should  like  to  have 
been  born  somewhere  else.' 

"Are  there  many  among  us  who  pride  themselves  in  saying,  '  I  am  a  Colom- 
bian,' as  a  Frenchman  prides  himself  in  saying,  'I  am  a  Frenchman?'"1 

Those  were  the  honest  words  of  the  Chief  Magistrate  of  Colombia,  inasmuch 
as  they  were  the  exact  picture  of  a  general  sentiment  subject  to  the  analysis, 
the  candid  revelation  of  the  condition  of  the  feelings  predominating  in  the  ma- 
jority of  Colombians.  Those  clear-cut  sentences,  which  sound  almost  biblical, 
have  a  particularly  deep  meaning  for  the  inhabitants  of  Panama,  and  constitute 
the  best,  most  complete,  and  eloquent  vindication  of  the  present  attitude  of  the 
Isthmians  and  of  those  who  not  having  been  born  in  our  territory,  came  to  it, 
built  happy  homes,  identified  their  interests  with  ours  as  well  as  their  ambitions 
and  hopes ;  suffered  by  our  side  by  virtue  of  the  awful  outrages  of  the  Govern- 
ment of  Colombia,  and  in  the  supreme  moment  helped  us  to  make  a  better 
country,  being  magnanimously  willing  to  sacrifice  for  her  sake  with  us  wakeful- 
ness, tranquillity,  and  even  life  itself  if  necessary. 

Those  evils  of  which,  like  its  predecessors,  the  present  President  of  Colombia 
made  a  brief  and  gloomy  enumeration  of,  no  longer  shall  produce  on  the  Isthmus 
their  fatal  effects,  thanks  to  the  glorious  independence  which  destroyed  forever 
their  roots.  The  minds  of  men  recovered  their  calmness;  the  mortal  enemies  of 
yesterday  over  the  dry  fields  of  the  young  Republic  stripped  themselves  as  they 
would  of  a  burning  garment  of  the  political  hatred  kindled  in  their  bosoms  by 
the  parties  of  Colombia  now  come  forward  with  firm  and  steady  "step  and  extend 
the  hand  of  peace  and  friendship. 

Blessed  be  the  work  which  commences  by  accomplishing  such  a  noble  need. 

Panama,  November  18,  1903. 

Ramon  M.  Valdes. 


Mr.  Buchanan  to  Mr.  Hay. 

No.  9.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Special  Mission, 
Panama,  December  28, 1903. 

Sir  :  I  beg  to  inclose  at  the  request  of  his  excellency,  the  minister 
for  foreign  affairs,  a  certified  document  showing  the  action  had  by 
certain  municipalities  of  this  Republic  in  the  matter  of  the  ratification 
of  the  action  of  the  junta  of  the  provisional  government  in  making 
the  treaty  with  our  Government  known  as  the  Hay-Varilla  treaty. 
This  method  of  ratification,  as  the  department  knows,  is  that  which 
has  been  followed  in  Colombia  during  many  occasions,  and  especially 
when  any  matter  of  importance  has  been  before  the  country. 

In  this  connection  I  beg  to  refer  the  department  to  a  portion  of  my 
note  of  the  27th  instant. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

Wm.  Buchanan. 

1  Inaugural  address  of  the  President  of  the  Republic,  Don  Jose"  Manuel  Marroqufn. 
Diario  Oflcial  of  Colombia,  No.  10724,  of  August  7,  1898. 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA   CANAL.  533 

[Official  Gazette,  extraordinary  number.     Panama,  December  12,  1903.] 
ACT    OF    THE    MUNICIPAL    COUNCIL    OF    CALOBRE. 

At  the  capital  of  the  municipal  district  of  Calobre,  at  2  in  the  afternoon  of 
the  2d  day  of  December,  1903,  in  the  hall  of  the  municipal  house,  the  district 
council  constituted  itself  in  solemn  session  with  the  attendance  of  its  members, 
Messrs.  Cristobal  Castillo,  president;  Belisario  Cocio,  Salvador  Vasquez,  and 
Genarino  Castillo;  acting  as  secretary  of  the  same,  Mr.  Juan  Bautista. 

There  were  also  present,  by  special  invitation,  Mr.  Demetrio  Vasquez,  mayor 
of  the  district;  Pedro  E.  Vasquez,  municipal  attorney,  and  a  large  number  of 
citizens. 

At  the  opening  of  the  session  the  president  made  known  to  the  corporation 
the  object  of  the  call,  and  thereupon  Salvador  Vasquez,  voting  member,  made 
the  following  motion : 

The  municipal  council  of  the  district  of  Calobre,  voicing  the  sentiments  of  the 
community  it  represents,  freely  and  spontaneously  resolves — 

To  signify  to  the  junta  of  government  that  represents  our  Republic  of  Panama 
that,  animated  by  the  absolute  confidence  we  place  in  it,  we  give  our  vote  of 
approval  to  any  action  it  may  take  in  regard  to  the  canal  contract. 

This  motion  being  submitted  to  debate  was  approved  by  a  unanimous  vote. 
The  council  directed  these  presents  be  sent  to  the  prefect  of  this  Province  in 
order  that  it  may  be  transmitted  through  him  to  the  junta  of  government  of 
Panama. 

The  present  act  is  written  out  for  record  and  signed  by  all  the  officers  present 
at  the  session. 

Cristobal  Castillo, 

President. 
P.  Urriola, 

Vice  President. 
Salvador  Vasquez, 
Genarino  Castillo, 
Belisario  Cocio. 

Voting  Members. 
Demetrio  Vasquez. 

Mayor. 

Resolution   unanimously   approved   at   the   special   session   of   the   3d   of 

December,  1903. 

The  municipal  council  of  Panama,  considering: 

That  on  the  2d  day  of  this  month  the  treaty  concluded  in  Washington  between 
Mr.  Philippe  Bunau-Varilla,  envoy  extraordinary  and  minister  plenipotentiary 
of  the  Republic  of  Panama,  and  His  Excellency  Mr.  John  Hay,  Secretary  of  State 
of  the  United  States  of  North  America,  on  the  18th  of  November  last,  for  the 
excavation  of  a  ship  canal  across  the  territory  of  our  Isthmus,  was  ratified  in 
this  city  by  the  junta  of  provisional  government; 

That  the  said  treaty  maintains  and  guarantees  on  the  part  of  the  Government 
of  the  United  States  the  independence  of  the  Republic  of  Panama  ; 

That  the  municipal  council  of  this  district,  with  full  knowledge  of  its  high 
mission  and  also  considering  itself  in  the  full  enjoyment  of  popular  sympathy 
and  support,  solemnly  demonstrated  on  the  4th  of  November  when  the  independ- 
ence of  the  Isthmus  was  proclaimed  in  public  meeting,  adheres  to  its  firm  pur- 
pose to  give  expression  to  all  that  it  feels  ought  to  be  done  for  the  permanent 
safety  of  the  Republic  of  Panama,  its  practicable  and  immediate  advancement; 

That  it  appreciates  and  applauds  the  inestimable  benefit  the  Republic  of 
Panama  derives  from  the  assurance  of  its  protection  given  by  the  power  of  the 
American  people ; 

That  the  Republic  of  Panama,  under  the  mighty  influence  of  the  nation  as 
preeminent  as  is  that  of  the  United  States,  will  shine  with  splendor  among  all 
the  other  Republics  of  America  : 

That  the  redeeming  work  of  the  interoceanic  canal  means  material  and  moral 
progress,  for  it  opens  a  wide  field  to  commerce,  to  agriculture,  to  the  progress  of 
science,  arts,  and  universal  navigation,  resolves: 

To  signify  its  complete  approval  of  the  Hay-Bunau-Varilla  treaty  and  give 
public  testimonial  of  applause  to  the  junta  of  government  and  to  every  one  of 
the  ministers  of  the  department. 


534  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

To  send  a  copy  of  this  resolution  to  the  junta  of  government  through  the 
regular  channel,  and  to  make  it  known  to  the  public  by  means  of  handbills  and 
through  the  press. 

Demetrio  H.   Brid, 

President. 
R.  Aizpuru, 

Vice  President. 
Jose  Maria  Chiari  R. 
A.  Arias  F. 
S.  Lewis. 

Ricardo  M.  Arango. 
Dario  Vallarino. 
Jose  B.  Villareal. 
•  Fabio  Arosemena. 

Manuel  J.  Cucalon. 

J.  Francisco  de  la  Ossa, 

Municipal  Mayor. 
Leopoldo  Guillen, 

Municipal  Attorney. 

Resolution  unanimously  approved   by  the  municipal  council  of  Aguadulce  in 
special  session  on  the  2d  of  December,  190S. 

The  municipal  council  of  Aguadulce,  faithful  interpreter  of  the  sentiments  of 
the  community  it  represents,  having  heard  that  the  most  excellent  junta  of 
government  of  the  Republic  this  day  approved  the  treaty  concluded  with  the 
Government  of  the  United  States  for  the  construction  of  the  canal,  a  measure 
of  salvation  and  of  transcendent  importance  for  the  interests  of  the  Isthmus, 
resolves : 

To  signify  its  concurrence  in  the  approbation  given  to  the  said  treaty  to  the 
most  excellent  junta  of  government. 

This  resolution  shall  be  transmitted  by  telegraph  and  published  in  the  official 
bulletin  of  this  city. 

Joaquin    Mendez, 
President  of  the  Council. 
Jose  M.  Galvo, 

Vice  President. 
Julio  Vargas  C, 

Voting  Member. 
Ladislao    Sosa, 

Acting  Secretary. 

Resolution  unanimously  approved  by  the  municipal  council  of  Natd. 

The  municipal  council  of  Nata,  in  the  exercise  of  its  legal  powers,  and  faith- 
fully interpreting  the  tacit  will  of  the  people  it  represents,  and  considering  that 
the  action  of  the  most  excellent  gentlemen  who  constitute  the  junta  of  the  gov- 
ernment is  in  every  way  identical  with  the  opinion  of  the  communities  of  this 
Republic  of  Panama,  resolves: 

To  give  a  vote  of  confidence  and  applause  to  the  honorable  junta  of  govern- 
ment for  its  final  approval  of  the  canal  treaty,  concluded  between  the  plenipoten- 
tiary ministers  of  the  United  States  of  North  America  and  of  our  Republic, 
which  vote  of  confidence  and  applause  for  this  so  successful  course  we  give  to 
include  its  worthy  ministers. 

Given  in  the  council  hall  on  the  3d  day  of  the  month  of  December,  1903. 

Raimundo  Gonzalez, 

President. 
Juan  B.  Urrtola  O., 
Jose  G.  Barragan, 
Manuel  Sandoval, 
Bernardo  Macias, 

Voting  Members. 
Gregoria  Porras. 

Secretary. 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  535 

Note  of  the  president  of  the  municipal  council  at  Santiago  de  Veragua. 

No.  8.]  Republic  of  Panama, 

Office  of  the  President  of  the  Municipal 

Council  of  the  District, 

December  2,  1903. 
The  Prefect  of  the  Province,  Present: 

The  municipal  council  of  this  district  at  its  session  of  this  date  has  just  ap- 
proved by  a  unanimous  vote  the  following  resolution : 

The  municipal  council  of  Santiago  de  Veragua,  haviug  learned  that  the  con- 
vention concluded  with  the  North  American  Government  for  the  opening  of  the 
interoceanic  canal  across  the  Isthmus  has  been  signed  and  has  been  already 
approved  by  the  most  excellent  junta  of  government  of  the  Republic  of  Panama 
and  by  its  ministry,  resolves: 

Declare  its  approval  of  the  said  treaty  and  give  a  vote  of  confidence  to  all  the 
members  of  the  Government  of  the  Republic  for  the  patriotic  interest  they  have 
evinced  on  behalf  of  the  community  of  this  Republic. 

Let  it  be  communicated  to  the  most  excellent  junta  of  government  to  the 
prefect  of  this  province. 

Which  I  communicate  to  you  for  all  necessary  purposes. 

May  God  have  you  in  His  keeping. 

Elizardo  Sanchez. 

Resolution  No.  If,  approved  by  the  municipal  council  of  Sona. 

The  municipal  council  of  Sona,  animated  by  the  most  generous  feelings  of 
patriotism,  and  as  ever  consistent  with  the  acts  of  this  corporation,  and  con- 
sidering— 

1.  That  the  separation  of  the  Isthmus  of  Panama  from  the  remainder  of  the 
Republic,  an  act  solemnly  achieved  in  the  city  of  Panama  of  the  4th  of  Novem- 
ber, 1903,  and  in  the  sight  of  the  civilized  world  is  a  fact  beyond  controversy. 

2.  That  this  political  evolution  and  the  recognition  of  the  new  Republic  by 
the  greater  powers  of  the  world  have  in  fact  cut  asunder  the  ties  that  united 
the  Isthmus  to  Colombia  and  forever  sealed  the  independence  of  the  Isthmus ; 
and 

3.  That  in  virtue  thereof  Colombia  has  no  longer  any  more  right  to  interfere 
in  the  matters  concerning  Panama  than  it  would  in  those  of  Africa  or  any  other 
region  far  distant  from  us,  resolves : 

To  adhere  once  more  and  in  spontaneous  manner  to  the  declaration  of  the 
independence  of  the  Isthmus  of  Panama,  signed  in  the  city  of  that  name  on  the 
4th  of  November  last,  and  to  approve  and  ratify  in  all  its  parts  the  treaty  for 
the  interoceanic  canal  across  the  Isthmus  of  Panama,  whatever  be  the  terms 
or  clauses  that  constitute  the  essence  of  this  treaty,  as  well  as  all  the  acts  that 
have  emanated  or  may  hereafter  emanate  from  the  most  excellent  junta  of 
government  of  the  Republic  of  Panama. 

Given  in  the  hall  of  meetings  of  the  municipal  council  of  Sona  December  2, 
1903. 

Jose  F.  Calvino, 

President. 
A.  Gra.tales, 
Jose  Maria  Dutari, 
Anibal  Arosemena, 

Voting  Members. 
Manuel    H.    Arosemena, 

Mayor. 
Dionisio  Sosa, 

Muncipal  Attorney. 
Manuel  S.  Reyes, 

Treasurer. 
Jose  F.  Calvino  B.. 

Secretary. 


536  DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY    OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

Resolution  ATo.  2,  approved  by  the  municipal  council  of  El  Montijo  at  its  ex- 
traordinary session  of  the  3d  day  of  December,  1903. 

The  municipal  council  of  El  Montijo,  iu  the  exercise  of  its  legal  powers,  and 
considering  that  the  eminent  citizens  and  distingushed  patriots  who  have  con- 
ducted and  brought  to  a  success  the  glorious  act  of  the  independence  of  the 
Isthmus  are  called  upon  to  continue  to  have  charge  of  its  general  interests,  and 
that  at  the  present  critical  time  they  need  the  encouraging  words  of  all  the 
communities  that  are  benefited  thereby,  resolves: 

That  the  spontaneous  vote  of  approval  and  confidence  be  given  the  honorable 
junta  of  Government  of  the  Republic  of  Panama!  in  order  that  in  the  name  of 
the  people  of  the  Isthmus,  its  constituents,  they  may  approve  the  negotiations 
entered  into  with  the  Government  of  the  United  States  of  America  in  regard 
to  the  grand  work  of  the  interoceanic  canal. 

A  copy  of  this  resolution  shall  be  transmitted  by  special  delivery  to  the  prefect 
of  Veraguas  in  order  to  be  transmitted  by  him  to  the  proper  department  with  as 
little  delay  as  possible.        * 

Jos£  M.  Trujillo, 

President. 
Gregorio  Urriola, 
Valentin  Rivas, 
Claro  Reyes, 

Voting  Members. 
RAUL  Arosemena, 

Secretary. 
[Official  telegrams.] 

Pes£,  4,  Santiago,  December  7,  1903. 
Junta  of  Government  and  Ministers  of  the  Department,  Panama: 

Take  pleasure  in  informing  you  that  municipalities  of  Pese,  Los  Santos,  Las 
Minas  y   Ocu   have   enthusiastically   approved   treaty   canal   concluded  by   our 
Republic  and  the  United  States. 
Resolutions  will  follow  shortly. 

Julio  Arjona  Q. 

Santiago,  December  2,  1903. 
The  Minister  of  Government,  Panama: 

The  honorable  council  of  this  district  authorizes  me  to  inform  the  most 
excellent  junta  of  government,  through  the  most  worthy  channel  of  your 
excellency,  that  at  the  session  of  to-day  it  has  given  its  approval  to  the  canal 
treaty  and  passed  a  vote  of  confidence  in  the  members  of  the  Government  of 
the  Republic  for  their  patriotic  interest  in  the  great  work  of  the  salvation  of 
the  Isthmus. 

I  will  send  original  by  mail. 

Osvaldo  Lopez.  Prefect. 

Chorrera,  December  7,  1903. 
The  Minister  of  Government,  Panama: 

Resolution  unanimously  approved  by  the  municipal  council  of  the  district  at 
the  session  of  to-day>  December  6,  1903. 

The  municipal  council  of  La  Chorrera,  considering — 

That  the  treaty  concluded  in  Washington  on  the  18th  of  November  last,  for 
the  opening  of  the  Interoceanic  Canal  on  the  Isthmus,  was  approved  by  the 
provisional  junta  of  the  Republic  of  Panama,  in  the  city  of  same  name,  on  the 
2d  day  of  the  present  month; 

That  by  the  said  treaty  the  independence  of  the  Republic  of  Panama  is 
assured  and  guaranteed  by  the  Government  of  the  United  States  of  America; 

That  the  municipal  corporation  of  this  district  realizes  the  urgent  necessity  of 
proceeding  promptly  with  the  approval  of  the  said  document  on  grounds  of 
external  safety,  though  no  official  notice  of  any  kind  has  yet  been  received : 

That  by  virtue  of  the  treaty  in  consideration  the  communities  of  the  Isthmus 
will  acquire  the  realization  of  the  wishes  of  its  sons  and  residents,  inasmuch  as 
the  opening  of  the  canal  on  their  own  territory  is  for  the  benefit  of  commerce 
and  to  the  advantage  of  the  world,  resolves : 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  537 

Unanimously  to  approve  the  treaty  concluded  between  His  Excellency  Mr. 
Bunau-Varilla,  envoy  extraordinary  and  minister  plenipotentiary  of  the  Repub- 
lic of  Panama,  and  His  Excellency  Mr.  John  Hay,  Secretary  of  State  of  the 
United  States. 

Let  a  copy  of  these  presents  be  sent  to  the  honorable  junta  of  government 
through  the  regular  channels. 

Jose  del  C.   Sanchez, 

Vice  President. 

Eusebio  Diaz. 

Jose  Neveba. 

I.  Nevera. 

J.   Jimenez. 

Leopoldo  Escala. 

Daniel  Aguilar. 

D.  Desedas,  Secretary. 

Consulate  General  of  the  United  States  of  America, 

Republic  of  Panama, 
Panama,  December  L'/,  1903. 
I,  H.  A.  Gudger,  consul-general  of  the  United  States  of  America  for  Panama 
and  the  dependencies  thereof  do  hereby  certify  that  I  have  examined  carefully 
the  original  documents  in  the  office  of  the  General  Government  at  Panama, 
sent  in  by  the  various  municipalities  throughout  the  Republic,  approving  the 
action  of  the  Provisional  Government,  or  junta,  in  ratifying  the  canal  treaty 
with  the  United  States  of  America,  and  that  I  have  compared  these  original 
documents  with  those  set  forth  in  the  printed  sheet  of  the  Gaceta  Oficial, 
Nurnero  Extraordinario,  dated  December  12,  1903,  set  forth  above,  and  to  which 
this  certificate  is  attached,  and  that  the  publications  therein  set  forth,  in 
printed  form,  from  the  municipalities  of  Calobre,  Panama,  Aguadulce,  Nata, 
Santiago  de  Veraguas,  Sona,  Montijo,  Pese,  Los  Santos,  Las  Minas,  Ocu,  and 
La  Chorrera  are  a  true,  correct,  and  perfect  copy  of  the  originals  on  file  in 
the  office  6f  the  Government  of  the  Republic  of  Panama. 

In  testimony  whereof  I  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  affix  the  seal  of  this  consu- 
late general,  this,  the  14th  day  of  December,  1903. 

H.  A.  Gudger, 
United  States  Consul-General. 

[Official  Gazette,  Extraordinary  Number.l 

Panama,  December  16,  1908. 

Advice  No.  11  (of  December  6,  1903),  by  which  ratification  is  given. 

The  municipal  council  of  the  district  of  Buena  Vista,  considering— 

That  on  the  2d  instant  the  treaty  signed  at  Washington  on  the  ISth  of 
November  last  for  the  excavation  of  an  interoceanic  canal  was  approved  by  the 
junta  of  the  provisional  government; 

That  in  this  agreement  the  independence  of  the  Republic  of  Panama  is 
guaranteed  by  the  Government  of  the  United  States. 

That  for  reasons  of  external  security  it  is  indispensable  to  proceed  with 
celerity  to  the  approval  of  the  treaty; 

That,  by  the  treaty,  the  aspiration  of  the  people  of  the  Isthmus  of  Panama  is 
realized  that  the  canal  be  excavated  for  its  own  service  and  for  the  benefit  of 
universal  commerce ; 

It  is  agreed : 

Sole  article.  To  give  its  approbation  to  the  treaty  solemnized  between  His 
Excellency  Mr.  Felipe  Bunau-Varilla,  envoy  extraordinary  and  minister  pleni- 
potentiary of  the  Republic  of  Panama,  and  His  Excellency  Mr.  John  Hay,  Sec- 
retary of  State  of  the  Republic  of  the  United  States  of  America. 

Given  at  Bohio,  December  6,  1903. 

The  president, 

Mateo  Guardia. 

The  secretary, 

Celedonio  Isaza. 


538  DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

Bohio,  December  7,  190S. 
At  the  office  of  the  mayor  of  the  district  of  Buena  Vista. 
Approved.     Let  it  be  published. 
The  mayor, 

Abel  Hormechea. 
The  secretary, 

Celedonio  Isaza. 

Bohio,  December  7,  1903. 
The  secretary  of  the  mayor's  office, 

Celdonia  Isaza. 

Advice  No.  16   (December  4,  1903),  by  which  approval  is  given. 

The  municipnl  council  of  Portobelo,  considering: 

That  on  the  2d  instant  the  treaty  negotiated  at  Washington  the  ISth  of  last 
November  for  the  construction  of  the  interoceanic  canal  was  approved  by  the 
junta  of  the  provisional  Government  of  Panama ; 

There  were  also  present  Mr.  Jose  Manuel  de  Adames,  the  municipal  mayor, 
and  a  number  of  private  citizens. 

The  session  being  opened,  the  vice  president  enthusiastically  set  forth  the 
purpose  of  the  meeting,  and  the  member  Julian  Martinez  made  the  following 
motion : 

The  municipal  council  of  Las  Palmas,  expressing  the  views  of  the  free  people, 
resolves : 

To  give,  as  is  now  given,  a  vote  of  approval  of  the  interoceanic  canal  treaty, 
seconding  the  act  of  the  Government  junta  and  ministers. 

Let  this  resolution  be  communicated  to  whom  it  may  concern. 
Upon  the  above  resolution  being  submitted  to  discussion,  it  was  unanimously 
approved. 

For  record,  the  resolution  is  signed  by  the  members  and  officers  present. 
The  vice  president, 

Uladislao  Castrell6n. 
Members, 

Salvador  Gordillo, 
Julian  Martinez, 
Jose  F.  Benavides. 
Mayor, 

J.  M.  de  Adames. 
The  secretary, 

R.  S.  Castrellon. 

At  the  capital  of  the  municipality  of  La  Mesa,  at  9  a.  m.  on  the  5th  of  De- 
cember, 1903,  in  the  customary  place,  the  municipal  council  of  the  district  met 
with  the  attendance  of  all  its  members,  Messrs.  Pedro  Tristan,  presiding, 
Eulogio  Solis,  Narciso  Barrio,  Lorenzo  Chamiso,  and  Avelino  J.  del  Barrio,  the 
last  acting  as  secretary.  The  session  being  opened,  the  president  set  forth  the 
object  of  the  meeting  and  read  the  telegram  addressed  by  the  minister  of  justice 
to  the  prefect  of  the  province  stating  the  approval  that  the  Government  junta 
and  ministers  had  given  to  the  canal  treaty,  whereupon  the  member  Narciso 
Barrio  made  the  following  motion  : 

"  The  municipal  council  of  the  district  of  La  Mesa,  expressing  the  views  of 
the  constituent  people,  free  and  voluntarily  resolves: 

"  To  advise  the  Government  junta  of  its  assent  to  the  approval  given  by  it  to 
the  canal  treaty,  and  to  tender  to  it  every  aid. 

Second.  That  the  aforesaid  treaty  has  merited  the  approval  of  the  Provisional 
Government  of  Panama,  as  is  shown  by  the  specific  ratification  which  the  mem- 
bers of  said  junta  made  of  such  agreement ; 

Third.  That  the  Panama  Canal  means  for  the  Isthmus,  among  other  things, 
consecration  of  labor  and  security  in  the  well-being  of  the  country. 

It  is  agreed — 

To  give  public  assent  to  the  Hay-Bunau-Varilla  treaty,  so  that  as  soon  as 
possible  a  beginning  may  be  given  to  the  work  of  excavation  of  the  canal  across 
the  Isthmus  of  Panama  ; 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  539 

To  recognize  the  action  taken  by  the  members  of  the  junta  of  the  Provi- 
sional Government  in  having  approved,  with  the  celerity  which  the  case  de- 
manded, the  Hay-Buna u-Varilla  treaty,  and  to  extend  to  them  a  vote  of  ap- 
proval for  their  conscientious  zeal  of  the  interests  of  the  Republic  of  Panama 
which  were  intrusted  to  their  care; 

To  send  a  copy  of  this  resolution  to  the  Provisional  Government  junta,  and 
to  publish  it  in  separate  sheets  for  the  information  of  the  public. 

Given  at  David,  in  the  conference  hall,  the  11th  of  December,  1903. 

The  president, 

Horacio  Benitez. 

The  vice  president, 

Luis  M.  Clement. 

Jose  de  Obaldia  Jovane. 

Jose  P.  Palma. 

Carlos  Bayo. 

Jose  Modesto  Molina. 
The  secretary, 

L.  Barraza  P. 

At  the  capital  in  the  municipal  district  of  Las  Palmas,  on  the  3d  day  of  the 
month  of  December,  1903,  in  the  Municipal  Hall,  the  council  of  the  district  met 
in  solemn  session  with  the  attendance  of  its  members,  Uladislao  Castrell6n, 
vice  president;  Salvador  Gordillo,  Jose  F.  Benavides,  and  Julian  Martinez,  and 
the  secretary,  Mr.  Rodolfo  L.  Castrellon. 

That  in  that  treaty  the  independence  of  the  Republic  of  Panama  is  guaran- 
teed by  the  Government  of  the  United  States; 

That  for  reasons  of  external  security  it  is  indispensable  to  proceed  with  dis- 
patch in  the  approval  of  the  treaty; 

That  the  treaty  fulfills  the  aspirations  of  the  people  of  the  Isthmus  of  Panama 
that  the  canal  be  built  for  its  own  benefit  and  for  the  benefit  of  universal  com- 
merce. 

It  is  agreed : 

Sole  Article.  To  approve  the  treaty  entered  into  between  his  excellency 
Mr.  Felipe  Bunau-Varilla,  envoy  extraordinary  and  minister  plenipotentiary  of 
the  Republic  of  Panama,  and  his  excellency  Mr.  John  Hay,  Secretary  of  State 
of  the  Republic  of  the  United  States  of  America. 

Given  at  Portobelo,  the  4th  of  December,  1903. 

The  president, 

Celso  N.  Rodriguez. 

The  secretary. 

Jose  R.  Arroyo. 

Republic  of  Panama,  Province  of  Colon. 

Municipal  mayorship  of  the  District  Portobelo.  December  7,  1903. 

Let  this  be  carried  into  effect  and  published. 

The  mayor, 

Sebastian  de  Le6n. 

The  secretary, 

Modesto  Mark  B. 
True  copy  of  the  original.     The  secretary, 

Modesto  Mark  B. 

Resolution  approved  by  the  municipal  council  of  David  in  special  session  Decem- 
ber 11,  1903. 

The  municipal  council  of  David,  considering : 

First.  That  on  the  3d  of  this  month  the  municipal  council  of  Panama,  as  the 
principal  guardian  of  the  public  interests  of  the  Republic  of  Panama,  and  at 
whose  initiation  the  proclamation  of  independence  of  the  Republic  was  made, 
has  issued  a  resolution  approving  the  treaty  negotiated  at  Washington,  the 
18th  of  November  last,  between  Senor  Philippe  Bunau-Varilla,  envoy  extraor- 
dinary and  minister  plenipotentiary  of  the  Republic  of  Panama,  and  his  excel- 
lency Mr.  John  Hay,  Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States  of  North  America, 
concerning  the  excavation  of  an  interoceanic  canal  across  the  Isthmus  of 
Panama : 

"  Let  this  be  communicated  to  whom  it  may  concern,  and  let  it  be  published." 


540  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL. 

Being  submitted   to  debate,   tbe  resolution  was  approved   unanimously.     For 
record,  tbe  resolution  is  signed  by  all  tbe  members  of  tbe  corporation,  copies 
being  made  for  transmission  to  tbe  mayor,  to  be  by  bini  sent  to  its  destination. 
Tbe  secretary, 

Pedro  Tristan. 
Member, 

Eulogio  SoLfs. 
Member, 

Narciso  Barrio. 
Member, 

Lorenzo  Chamiso. 
The  president, 

AVELINO     J.     DEL     BARRIO. 

We,  tbe  undersigned  residents  of  tbe  municipality  of  La  Mesa,  comply  with  a 
just  duty  in  announcing  to  the  Government  junta  of  the  Republic  of 'Panama 
our  recognition  and  approval  of  its  act  approving  the  canal  treaty  negotiated 
between  our  minister  and  the  Government  of  the  United  States.  That  act  makes 
secure  our  future  and  our  peace. 
La  Mesa,  December  3,  1903. 

Jose  J.  Alvarado.  Alejandro  Mendez,  Nicolas  Alcedo,  Manuel  Maria 
Alcedo,  Octavio  E.  Rios,  Jose  J.  Tristan,  Pedro  Tristan,  Manuel 
Medina.  Lorenzo  Chamiso,  Manuel  Medina,  Yalerio  Medina, 
Darfo  Castillo,  Eulogio  Solis,  Manuel  S.  Escudero,  Moises  Vas- 
quez,  P.  J.  Alvarado,  Jose  Bolivar  Castillo,  Jose  Dolores  Barrio, 
Jeronimo  Portugal,  Jose  J.  Tristan  M.,  Manuel  S.  Vargas,  Efrain 
Castillo,  Jose  A.  Castillo. 

Gentlemen — Members  of  the  Government  Junta,  Panama: 

With  the  liveliest  satisfaction  we  have  learned  of  the  approval  which,  in  the 
exercise  of  your  august  faculties,  you  have  given  to  tbe  treaty  negotiated  by  the 
United  States  and  the  commissioners  of  our  Republic  in  Washington  for  the 
opening  of  an  interoceanic  canal.  That  act  guarantees  the  interests  of  the 
isthmian  nation  and  consolidates  our  Republic. 

We  therefore  respectfully  present  to  you  our  cordial  recognition. 

San  Francisco,  December  3,  1903. 

Ladislao  Rodriguez,  Pastor  Paredes,  T.  A.  Adames,  Juan  Bautista 
Gonzalez  G.,  Mateo  Gonzales  Nicolas  Gonzalez  H.,  Gonzalo  M. 
Gonzalez,  Sebastian  Paniza  R.,  Juan  Bonilla,  Francisco  Gonzalez, 
Jacinto  G.  Rodriguez,  Julio  Rodriguez,  Miguel  Robles,  Adolfo 
Bonilla,  Eufrasio  Montero,  Jeremias  Jaen,  D.  Rodriguez,  Eulogio 
J.  Gonzalez  E.,  Valerio  Manila,  Manuel  de  J.  Palma,  Wenceslao 
Aguilar  H.,  Manuel  Salvador  Sanchez,  Jose  de  la  E.  Merida. 

Resolution  unanimously  adopted  by  the  municipal  council  of  Taboga  in  the 
session  of  the  3d  of  December,  1903. 

The  municipal  council  of  Taboga  having  learned  that  the  treaty  negotiated 
between  the  representative  of  the  Republic  of  Panama  in  Washington  and  the 
Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States,  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States 
of  America,  for  the  opening  of  an  interoceanic  canal  across  our  isthmus,  was 
ratified  yesterday  by  the  honorable  junta  of  the  provisional  Government  of  the 
Republic,  resolves: 

To  advise  that  honorable  body  that  the  municipal  council  of  Taboga,  faith- 
fully interpreting  the  aspirations  of  the  people  it  represents,  has  noted  with 
satisfaction  that  the  aforesaid  treaty  has  been  ratified,  a  fact  which  meets  a 
universal  need,  and  it  presents  to  the  honorable  junta  for  this  reason  its  most 
cordial  congratulations. 

Let  a  copy  of  this  resolution  be  transmitted  to  the  honorable  junta,  and  let  it 
be  published. 

Taboga,  December  3,  1903. 

The  vice  president,  _  _, 

Prospero  Beluche. 

The  president  of  the  council, 

1  Felipe  Salinas. 

Member,  T     ,       - 

Jose  a  Rivera. 

Member,  Josfi  Mekcedes  Casal. 

Member,  -r  „  Tj, 

Melchor  Rivera  E. 

The  acting  secretary,  Juan  ^  Rivera  p< 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  541 

Advice  No.  2  {December  5,  1903),  by  which  approval  is  given. 

The  municipal  council  of  Gatun,  considering: 

That  on  the  2d  instant  the  treaty  negotiated  at  Washington  on  the  ISth  of 
November  last  for  the  construction  of  an  interoceanic  canal  was  approved  by  the 
junta  of  the  provisional  government  of  Panama; 

That  in  this  contract  the  independence  of  the  Republic  of  Panama  is  guaran- 
teed by  the  Government  of  the  United  States; 

That  for  reasons  of  external  security  it  is  indispensable  to  proceed  with  dis- 
patch in  the  approval  of  the  treaty; 

That  by  virtue  of  the  treaty  the  aspiration  of  the  people  of  the  Isthmus  of 
Panama  is  realized  that  the  canal  shall  be  built  fcr  its  own  benefit  and  for  the 
advancement  of  universal  commerce,  it  is  agreed: 

Sole  article.  To  approve  the  treaty  entered  into  between  His  Excellency  Mr. 
Felipe  Runau-Varilla,  envoy  extraordinary  and  minister  plenipotentiary  of  the 
Republic  of  Panama,  and  His  Excellency  Mr.  John  Hay,  Secretary  of  State  of 
the  Republic  of  the  United  States  of  America. 

Given  at  Gatun  the  5th  of  December,  1903. 

The  President  of  the  council, 

H.    Herkeka    R. 

The  secretary, 

U.    Sanguillen    A. 

Office  of  the  Mayor, 
District  of  Gatun,  December  5,  1903. 
Approved. 
The  mayor, 

Jose  G.  Saiazar. 
The  secretary, 

U.    Sanguillen    A. 

At  the  capital  of  the  municipal  district  of  Rio  Jesus;  3d  day  of  December, 
1903,  at  3  p.  m.,  in  the  municipal  hall,  the  municipal  council  met  with  an  at- 
tendance of  all  its  principal  members :  Messrs.  Santos  Guevara,  president ;  Josg 
C.  Cruz,  vice  president;  Diego  Lopez,  Santiago  Bernal,  and  Jose  D.  Mendoza, 
acting  secretary. 

The  session  being  called  to  order,  the  president  advised  the  board  of  the  object 
of  the  meeting  and  placed  before  them  the  telegram  from  the  minister  of  justice. 
Whereupon  the  member,  Diego  Lopez,  had  the  floor  and  proposed  the  following 
motion : 

"  The  municipal  council  of  the  district  of  Rio  Jesus,  interpreting  the  desires 
of  the  constituent  people,  freely  and  voluntarily 

"  Resolves,  To  give  its  vote  of  approval  to  the  government  junta  of  the  ap- 
proval it  has  given  of  the  canal  treaty,  and  to  extend  to  it  every  aid. 

"  Let  this  be  communicated  to  whom  it  may  concern,  and  let  it  be  published." 

Being  submitted  to  discussion  the  resolution  was  unanimously  adopted. 

In  conformity  with  the  custom  the  present  act  is  copied  and  is  signed  by  all 
the  members. 

The  president. 

Santos  Guevara. 
The  vice  president, 

Jose  C.  Cruz. 
Members. 

Diego  Lopez. 
S.   Bernal. 
Secretary. 

Jose  D.  Mendoza. 
To   the  Government  Junta,    Panama: 

The  undersigned,  residents  of  Sona,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  it  does  not 
clearly  comprehend  the  difficulties  and  dangers  between  Colombia  and  Panama 
relative  to  the  construction  of  an  interoceanic  canal  across  the  Isthmus  of  that 
name,  because  the  former  country  has  no  right  to  treat  of  a  matter  which  does 
not  pertain  to  it,  since  the  Isthmus  has  separated  itself  from  Colombia  with  the 
consent  of  all  its  citizens,  and  has  proclaimed  itself  an  independent  Republic 
under  the  protection  of  the  United  States  of  the  north,  and  now  recognized  as 
such  by  the  greater  part  of  the  European  powers ;  and  notwithstanding  that,  by 
our  adhesion  to  the  act  of  independence  of  the  Isthmus,  signed  in  the  city  of 
Panama  the  4th  of  November  last,  we  gave  tacit  approval  to  all  acts  which  in 


542  DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OP   THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

the  future,  and  until  a  regular  government  is  formed,  should  be  effected  by  the 
most  excellent  government  junta  which  to-day  so  ably  watches  over  the  desti- 
nies of  this  Republic,  we  certify  anew  by  this  present  act  our  most  ample  and 
unconditional  approval  of  the  treaty  for  the  opening  of  an  interoceanic  canal 
across  the  Isthmus  of  Panama,  signed  at  Washington  by  the  Governments  of 
the  United  States  of  the  north  and  of  Panama,  the  only  Governments  having 
any  right  to  deal  with  the  subject. 
Sonft.  December  2,  1903. 

E.  Abadia,  A.  Grajales,  Jose  F.  Calvino,  Demetrio  Dutari,  Dionisio 
Sosa,  Jose  Maria  Dutari,  Casimiro  Bal,  Milciades  Calvino,  Julio 
M.  Ramirez,  Jose  F.  Calvino  B.,  Luis  Romero  G.,  Modesto  Dutari 
F.  Ortiz,  Arcesio  Grajales,  Alcides  Grajales,  Anlbal  Grajales, 
Anlbal  Arosemena,  J.  M.  Dutari  A.,  Rogeiio  Garcia,  M.  H.  Arose- 
mena,  Ezequiel  Calviiio,  Rodolfo  L.  Castrellon,  L.  Castrellon,  U. 
Tristan  Roberto  Dutari.  Gustavo  Bal.  J.  F.  Palacios,  Belisario 
Sosa,  Jose  N.  Ortiz,  Daniel  Abrego,  C.  Arosemena  A.,  Andronico 
Benavides,  Jose  F.  Sanchez,  Carlos  B.  Ortiz,  F.  Ortiz  A..  Balbino 
Alvarado,  Manuel  S.  Benavides,  Baltazar  Abrego,  Ezequiel  San- 
chez, Fidel  Sanchez  Q.,  Norberto  Merida,  Eusebio  Escarreola, 
Benedicto  Pinilla,  Jose  del  C.  Alvarado,  Modesto  Escartin,  Arqui- 
medes  Arosemena.  Armando  Rosa,  Bias  F.  Arauz,  Bernardo 
Arosemena,  Manuel  Robles  G.,  Manuel  H.  Arosemena  C,  Jose 
Felix  Sosa,  Manuel  del  C.  Benavides,  Manuel  S.  Reyes,  Enrique 
Urdaneta.  Francisco  Arosemena,  Miguel  Amores,  Francisco 
Adames,  Tiburcio  Adames,  Alberta  Abrego,  Liborio  Abrego,  An- 
tonio Quintero,  Baldomero  Bctacio,  Manuel  Maria  Arosemena, 
Samuel  Arosemena,  Tiverio  Ortiz,  Juan  C.  Berguido. 

The  municipal  council  of  the  district  of  San  Francisco,  in  representation  of  the 
constituent  people,  being  informed  of  the  ratification  of  the  treaty  with  the 
United  States  of  North  America  concerning  the  opening  of  the  canal  in  the  zone 
of  the  Isthmust  of  Panama, 

Resolves,  To  extend  its  most  sincere  congratulations  and  applause  to  the  Gov- 
ernment junta  and  commissioners  in  Washington  for  the  happy  and  speedy 
way  in  which  that  treaty  has  been  consummated,  as  it  will  assure  the  exist- 
ence of  the  Republic  of  Panama. 

San  Francisco,  December  3,  1903. 


The  President, 
Members, 

Secretary, 


D.  Rodriquez. 

Valekio   Bareera. 
Manuel  de  J.  Palma. 
Jose  de  la  E.  Merida. 

Ladislao   Rodriguez. 


resolution. 


Being  highly  interested  in  the  definitive  consummation  of  the  canal  treaty 
which  has  been  negotiated  between  the  Governments  of  Panama  and  the  United 
States  of  North  America,  we.  the  undersigned  residents  of  the  district  of  Rio 
Jesus,  hasten  to  inform  the  most  excellent  Government  junta  of  our  Republic 
and  its  honorable  ministers  that  we  approve  the  most  important  act  of  ratifica- 
tion given  in  Panama  to  this  treaty,  day  before  yesterday,  of  which  we  have 
been  advised  by  telegraph. 

Adolfo  IIerrera. 

Santos  Cruz  M. 

Jose   Cruz. 

Mantel  Doblas. 

Tomas  EscartIn. 

Jose  E.  Bustamante. 

Bernardino  EscartIn. 

Emilio   Escartin. 

AquiiJno   Guevara. 

Jose  D.   Menda. 

Sacramento  Castillo   O. 

Delfin  Herrera. 
j  Celedonio  Monroy. 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  543 

[seal.]  consulate  general  of  the  united  states  of  america.  [seal.] 

Republic  of  Panama, 
Panama,  December  2Jf,  1903. 

I,  H.  A.  Gudger,  consul  general  of  the  United  States  of  America  for  Panama 
and  the  dependencies  thereof,  do  hereby  certify  that  I  have  examined  carefully 
the  original  documents  in  the  office  of  the  General  Government  of  Panama,  sent 
in  by  the  municipalities  of  Buenavista,  Portobelo,  David,  Las  Palmas,  La  Mesa, 
Taboga,  Gatun,  Rio  Jesus,  San  Francisco,  and  citizens  of  La  Mesa,  Sona,  and 
Rio  Jesus,  approving  the  action  of  the  provisional  government  or  junta  in  rati- 
fying the  canal  treaty  with  the  United  State's  of  America,  and  that  I  have  com- 
pared these  original  documents  with  those  set  forth  in  the  printed  sheet  of  the 
Gaceta  Oficial,  Numero  Extraordinario,  dated  December  1G,  1903,  and  to  which 
this  certificate  is  attached,  and  that  the  publications  therein  set  forth  in  printed 
form  from  the  above  municipalities  and  citizens  are  true,  correct,  and  perfect 
copies  of  the  original  documents  on  file  in  the  office  of  the  Government  of  the 
Republic  of  Panama. 

In  testimony  whereof,  I  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  affix  the  seal  of  this  con- 
sulate general  this  the  24th  day  of  December,  1903. 

[seal.]  H.   A.    Gudger, 

United  States  Consul  General. 


M r.  Bunau-V arilla  to  Mr.  Hay. 

Washington,  D.  C,  January  6,  1911^. 

Sir  :  I  have  the  honor  of  informing  you  that  I  have  received  from 
my  Government  an  extract  of  the  Gaceta  Oficial  of  December  16, 
duly  certified  by  H.  A.  Gudger,  consul  general  of  the  United  States, 
in  which  the  municipalities  of  Buenavista,  Portobelo,  David,  Las 
Palmas,  La  Mesa,  Toboga,  Gatun,  Rio  Jesus,  San  Francisco,  and  the 
citizens  of  La  Mesa.  Sona,  and  Rio  Jesus  give  in  the  warmest  terms 
the  expression  of  their  satisfaction  of  the  signature  of  the  convention 
of  18th  of  November  last,  referring  to  the  Panama  Canal. 

This  completes  the  list  of  the  elective  bodies  of  the  Republic,  which 
have  all  expressed  their  unconditional  approval  of  the  treaty  and  of 
its  ratification  by  the  Panama  Government.  I  must  say  that  this 
expression  of  opinion  is  in  harmony  with  the  satisfaction  of  the  whole 
country  which  was  made  conspicuous  at  the  recent  election,  where, 
for  the  first  time  in  the  history  of  the  State  of  Panama,  every  citizen 
has  been  at  liberty  to  perform  his  duty  according  to  his  conscience. 
To  adopt  the  formula  employed  in  a  private  letter  directed  to  me  by 
an  eminent  person  of  the  Isthmus,  "  The  liberty  of  suffrage  has  been 
absolute  and  pure  and  every  citizen  has  made  use  of  this  precious 
right,  observing  admirable  order." 

I  am,  sir,  writh  great  respect,  your  very  obedient  servant. 

P.  Bunau-Varilla. 


[Official  Gazette,  extraordinary  number,  Panama,  December  14,  1903.] 

Decree  No.  25,  1903  (December  12),  concerning  the  holding  of  the  national 
constitutional  convention  and  manner  of  electing  the  delegates  icho  are  to 
com/pose  the  same. 

The  junta  of  the  Provisional  Government  of  the  Republic,  in  the  use  of  its 
powers, 

Whereas : 

1.  The  country  is  now  in  a  state  of  absolute  peace  and  no  fears  of  any  kind 
exist  as  to  interior  disturbance;  and 


544  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL. 

2.  It  is  the  imperative  duty  of  the  Provisional  Government  to  proceed  to  the 
constitution  and  organization  of  the  country  hy  means  of  a  national  convention 
elected  by  the  people; 

It  is  decreed : 

Chapter  1. — General  orders. 

Article  1.  A  national  constitutional  convention  is  called  for  the  15th  day  of 
January.  1904,  with  the  object  of  forming  the  constitution  or  fundamental  law 
of  the  Republic. 

Art.  2.  The  national  constitutional  convention  shall  be  composed  of  32  dele- 
gates, at  the  rate  of  four  for  each  one  of  the  Provinces  of  Bocas  del  Toro,  Code, 
Chiriqui,  Colon,  Los  Santos,  and  Veraguas,  and  eight  for  the  Province  of 
Panama. 

There  shall  be  as  many  alternates  as  there  are  delegates  for  each  Province. 
These  alternates  will  be  named  first,  second,  third,  and  fourth  in  all  the  Prov- 
inces with  the  exception  of  Panama,  in  which  there  shall  be-also  the  fifth,  sixth, 
seventh,  and  eighth,  and  they  will  be  summoned  in  their  order  to  substitute  the 
principals  in  case  of  complete  or  temporary  absence. 

Art.  3.  The  delegates  and  alternates  to  the  national  constitutional  convention 
shall  be  elected  by  direct  and  secret  vote  on  a  separate  ballot  for  each  Province. 

Akt.  4.  All  men  of  21  years  of  age,  born  in  and  at  this  time  residents  of  the 
territory  of  the  Isthmus  of  Panama,  who  have  not  lost  their  political  rights 
according  to  the  law,  natives  of  Colombia  who  may  have  manifested  their  desire 
to  become  citizens  of  the  Republic  and  who  have  taken  oath  of  allegiance  or  who 
may  take  the  same  before  the  day  of  the  elections,  and  those  who  are  found 
in  the  service  of  the  country  on  the  said  date  have  the  right  to  vote  in  the  elec- 
tions for  delegates. 

Art.  5.  All  individuals  [men]  born  in  the  territory  of  the  Isthmus  of  Panama 
who  have  attained  the  age  of  21  years,  in  the  full  enjoyment  of  their  political 
rights,  and  natives  of  Colombia  who  may  have  sworn  fidelity  to  the  Republic  or 
signed  the  articles  of  independence  or  manifested  their  desire  to  become  citizens 
of  the  same  previous  to  the  publication  of  this  decree  may  be  eligible  for  election 
as  delegates  to  the  national  constitutional  convention. 

Individuals  who  have  formed  part  of  the  junta  of  the  Provisional  Govern- 
ment, the  ministers  of  state,  the  magistrates  of  the  court  of  justice,  the  attor- 
ney general  and  the  treasurer  general  of  the  Republic,  the  commander  in  chief 
and  the  chief  of  staff  of  the  national  army,  and  in  general  any  public  officer 
throughout  the  entire  Republic,  and  the  magistrates  of  Provinces  in  the  Prov- 
inces under  their  jurisdiction,  who  may  have  discharged  such  duties  ten  days 
previous  to  the  elections,  can  not  be  eligible  for  election  as  delegates. 

Art.  6.  The  ministers  of  the  cabinet  shall  have  seat  in  the  national  constitu- 
tional convention  and  voice  in  its  discussions. 

Chapter  II. — Electoral  boards. 

Art.  7.  In  the  capital  of  each  Province  there  shall  be  an  electoral  board  com- 
posed of  four  members  named  by  the  junta  of  the  provisional  government ;  there 
will  be  also  four  alternates  named  in  the  same  manner  to  substitute  the  prin- 
cipals in  case  of  complete  or  temporary  absence. 

The  members  of  the  electoral  boards  shall  assume  charge  of  their  duties  in  the 
presence  of  the  magistrates  of  the  respective  Provinces  on  the  same  day  the 
appointment  is  received  by  them. 

Art.  8.  The  electoral  boards  shall  be  unable  to  transact  their -business  without 
the  attendance  of  the  majority  of  their  members.  The  day  of  their  installation 
they  shall  name  a  president,  a  vice  president,  and  a  secretary  who  may  or  may 
not  be  from  their  membership.  Their  sessions  shall  be  public,  they  shall  make 
authentic  reports  of  them,  which  each  body  will  enter  in  a  book,  their  votes  when 
not  unanimous  shall  be  recorded  by  name,  and  appointments  shall  be  made  in 
secret. 

Art.  9.  When  any  member  or  members  of  the  electoral  hoard  are  wholly  or 
temporarilv  absent  i1  is  the  duty  of  the  same  body  to  summon  the  respective 
substitutes  ;ind  under  penalty  of  a  fine  of  $00  or  less  to  compel  those  who 
decline  to  attend  or  delay  their  appearance. 

The  day  upon  which  the  board  is  to  be  installed  or  reassembled  and  is  pre- 
vented from  so  doing  by  the  failure  of  a  majority  of  its  members  to  attend,  those 
present,  in  any  number  whatever,  can  compel  them  under  the  fine  already  ex- 
pressed and  call  the  respective  substitutes. 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  545 

Chapter  III. — Elections. 

Art.  10.  The  voting  shall  take  place  in  the  presence  of  the  municipal  council 
of  each  district,  the  respective  quorum  being  present  as  in  its  ordinary  session 
whether  those  acting  be  its  principals  or  the  alternates. 

In  those  districts  in  which  the  number  of  citizens  exceeds  400,  the  said  munici- 
pal council,  with  due  deliberation,  shall  choose  from  among  the  persons  with  a 
knowledge  of  reading  and  writing  five  persons  to  receive  the  votes,  with  the 
character  of  judges  of  election,  selecting  as  many  of  these  as  required  by  the 
number  of  voters,  calculated  at  the  rate  of  400  for  each  body  of  judges,  and 
where  there  is  a  number  exceeding  100  another  set  of  judges  will  be  designated 
to  receive  the  votes  from  them,  but  if  the  number  be  less,  the  voting  of  these 
will  be  in  the  presence  of  the  first  body  named  by  the  council,  who  thus  will 
receive  a  number  greater  than  400. 

Art.  11.  The  judges  of  election  can  not  be  installed  nor  act  with  a  less  num- 
ber present  than  three  of  their  members,  and  can  impose  a  fine  of  $50  upon 
tbose  who  refuse  to  assist  or  delay  their  attendance.  These  fines  will  be  made 
effective  by  the  first  political  authority  of  the  district. 

Art.  12.  For  the  act  of  voting,  some  fit  location  of  easy  access  shall  be  desig- 
nated in  order  that  citizens  may  attend  and  deposit  their  votes. 

Art.  13.  Each  body  of  judges  of  election  on  being  installed  shall  name  a  presi- 
dent and  a  vice  president  from  among  its  members,  and  a  secretary,  who  may  or 
may  not  be  a  member  of  the  same. 

Art.  34.  The  municipal  council,  or  the  judges  in  its  place,  shall  give  the  proper 
orders  that  the  voting  may  begin  promptly  and  be  carried  out  with  absolute 
freedom.  In  this  respect,  if  necessary,  it  shall  demand  the  cooperation  of  the 
alcalde  (mayor)  and  the  inspectors  of  police,  who  will  be  obliged  to  give 
him  aid. 

Art.  15.  The  municipal  council  or  the  judges  of  election  shall  so  dispose  that 
the  voting  may  begin  precisely  at  8  o'clock  on  the  morning  of  the  27th  day  of 
this  month  of  December,  the  opening  of  the  same  being  announced  by  means  of 
the  long  roll  of  a  drum  at  the  street  door  of  the  place  assigned  for  the  voting. 
The  voting  shall  cease  at  4  o'clock  in  the  afternoon,  which  will  be  announced  by 
another  long  roll  of  the  drum. 

Art.  16.  Every  citizen  has  the  right  to  cast  his  vote  in  the  election  herein 
named,  and  the  municipal  council  or  the  judges  of  election  can  not  refuse  this 
right  unless  three  citizens  affirm  under  oath  that  he  has  not  the  said  right,  con- 
cerning which  they  will  submit  testimony  for  the  purposes  which  are  expressed 
in  the  following  article. 

Art.  IT.  If  it  happen  that  any  perse  n  not  a  citizen  attempts  to  vote,  for  this 
act  alone  he  shall  be  sentenced  to  ninety  days  of  imprisonment,  after  ascertain- 
ing the  facts,  by  the  judge  of  the  respective  circuit;  also  those  individuals  who 
falsely  testify  before  the  municipal  council  or  the  judges  of  election  that  a 
citizen  does  not  possess  the  proper  qualifications  to  vote  shall  suffer  six  months 
imprisonment. 

Art.  18.  No  citizen  may  cast  more  than  one  vote  in  the  election.  Up  who 
deposits  more  than  one  vote,  be  it  in  one  voting  place  or  another,  shall  suffer 
the  punishment  hereinafter  to  be  expressed. 

Art.  19.  In  order  to  prevent  any  citizen  from  casting  more  than  one  vote  the 
name  of  each  voter  shall  be  inscribed  in  a  register  in  regular  order,  which 
register  shall  be  placed  upon  the  voting  table  in  view  of  the  public,  and  at  the 
close  of  the  voting  all  the  judges  snail  sign  at  the  foot  of  the  register  and  as 
many  as  four  citizens  who  may  desire  to  do  so.  and  copy  will  be  given  of  said 
registers  to  whomsoever  solicits  it. 

Art.  20.  The  ballots  for  the  election  of  delegates  to  the  national  constitutional 
convention  shall  state  separately  the  names  of  the  individuals  to  be  voted  for  as 
principals  and  the  names  of  those  for  whom  a  vote  is  to  be  cast  for  alternates. 

Those  who  obtain  the  greater  number  of  votes  as  principals  shall  be  declared 
elected  with  that  character,  and  those  obtaining  a  majority  of  votes  as  alternates 
shall  be  declared  elected  alternates  according  to  the  order  of  the  number  of 
votes  cast  for  each.     In  case  of  a  tie  the  order  shall  be  decided  by  lot. 

Art.  21.  The  ballots  shall  not.  contain  the  name  of  the  same  person  twice;  they 
shall  state  under  the  heads  of  principals  and  alternates,  properly  separated,  the 
names  of  the  candidates;  they  shall  be  placed  within  an  envelope  or  cover  that 
they  may  be  examined  without  reading  their  contents,  and  shall  measure  in 
length  no  more  than  a  decimeter  in  order  that  they  may  easily  be  placed  in  the 
ballot  box. 

42112— S.  Doc.  474.  63-2 35 


546  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL. 

Akt.  22.  The  judges  of  election  shall  be  installed  for  the  act  of  the  elections 
and  to  superintend  the  same  in  such  manner  that  they  will  be  in  view  of  the 
public,  bul  separated  from  it  by  means  of  gratings. 

Art.  23.  A  table  shall  be  placed  near  the  .indues,  around  which  they  will  place 
themselves,  the  voters  having  access  to  the  table  at  one  side.  On  the  top  of 
the  table  there  will  be  an  urn,  which  shall  be  a  box  of  wood  with  an  opening  of  a 
decimeter  in  length  and  a  centimeter  in  breadth. 

Art.  24.  Immediately  before  the  opening  of  the  voting  the  box  shall  be  opened 
and  the  public  will  be  permitted  to  examine  it.  that  it  may  be  convinced  that  it 
is  empty  and  that  it  does  not  contain  a  double  bottom  or  other  secret  means  for 
committing  fraud. 

Akt.  25.  The  vote  shall  be  taken  in  a  single  day  in  public  and  continuous 
session  during  the  hours  set  forth  by  this  decree.  The  hour  having  arrived  for 
the  termination  of  the  voting,  the  same  signal  that  announced  the  beginning  of 
the  same  shall  be  given  in  the  hearing  of  the  judges. 

Art.  26.  immediately  after  the  closing  of  the  voting  the  judges  shall  read 
aloud  the  list  of  the  citizens  who  have  voted:  they  shall  state  in  the  same  man- 
ner the  total  number  of  the  voters  and  will  place  at  the  bottom  of  said  list  the 
following  note:  "  We.  the  undersigned,  members  of  the  judges  of  election,  num- 
ber   .  do  hereby  certify  that  this  day    (giving  number)   citizens  have  voted 

for  the  election  of  delegates  to  the  national  constitutional  convention,  the  names 
of  whom  are  above  noted."  The  date  and  signatures  of  the  judges  and  the  sec- 
retary shall  then  be  attached. 

Art.  27.  The  direction  given  in  the  foregoing  article  having  been  carried  out. 
the  urn  in  which  the  ballots  were  deposited  shall  be  publicly  opened.  The  sec- 
retary shall  count  them  one  by  one.  If  there  be  a  greater  number  than  those  of 
the  individuals  voting  all  of  the  ballots  shall  be  replaced,  and  after  moving 
them  to  change  the  location  as  many  ballots  as  are  excessive  shall  be  drawn  out 
by  lot  and  without  opening  shall  be  immediately  burned. 

Art.  28.  The  ballots  having  been  counted  and  collected,  they  shall  then  be 
examined,  which  shall  be  done  by  two  of  the  judges,  who  shall  keep  the  register 
of  the  number  of  votes  cast  in  favor  of  each  candidate.  Another  of  the  judges 
shall  open  and  read  the  ballots  aloud,  one  by  one.  and  shall  show  them  to  those 
who  are  noting  the  result. 

Akt.  29.  A  vote  that  does  not  express  in  an  intelligible  manner  the  name  and 
surname  of  the  person  in  whose  favor  it  is  cast  shall  be  considered  a  blank. 

In  like  manner  the  votes  cast  in  favor  of  women,  other  ineligible  persons,  and 
foreigners  shall  be  considered  as  blanks. 

Art.  30.  Should  an  envelope  contain  two  or  more  ballots,  neither  of  them  shall 
be  counted  and  the  vote  shall  be  considered  null. 

Art.  31.  The  examination  having  been  concluded,  the  result  shall  be  read 
aloud,  and  a  copy  of  the  summary  of  it,  signed  by  all  the  members  of  the  munici- 
pal council  or  of  the  judges  present,  will  be  furnished  to  anyone  desiring  the 
same.  Then  the  ballots  shall  be  inclosed  in  a  package,  upon  the  cover  of  which 
shall  be  placed  a  certificate  of  its  contents,  and  it  shall  be  directed  to  the  presi- 
dent of  the  electoral  board  of  the  respective  province. 

Art.  32.  The  result  of  the  examination  shall  be  set  forth  in  a  register,  in  which 
shall  be  stated  the  number  of  votes  obtained  by  each  candidate  and  other  cir- 
cumstances concerning  the  matter.  Three  copies  of  this  register  shall  be  made, 
which  shall  be  directed  respectively  to  the  convention,  to  the  junta  of  the  provi- 
sional government,  and  to  the  president  of  the  electoral  board  of  the  province, 
sending  to  this  last  named  the  package  that  contains  the  ballots  of  the  election 
and  the  list  of  the  voters. 

Art.  33.  Each  copy  of  the  register  shall  be  signed  by  all  the  members  of  the 
municipal  council  and  judges  and  by  those  attending  up  to  the  number  of  ten 
who  may  wish  to  do  so.  The  envelopes  containing  the  other  documents  for- 
warded by  the  judges  of  election  shall  be  signed  in  like  manner. 

Art.  34.  The  duties  of  members  of  the  electoral  boards  or  of  the  judges  of 
election  are  obligatory. 

Chapter  IV. — Examinations. 

Art.  35.  It  is  the  duty  of  the  electoral  boards  to  make  the  examination  of  the 
votes  cast  in  the  municipal  districts  before  the  municipal  councils  and  the 
judges  of  election. 

Art.  36.  On  the  3d  day  of  January,  1904,  at  10  o'clock  in  the  morning,  in  a 
public  place,  and  after  having  been  announced  by  three  rolls  of  the  drum,  the 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL.  547 

electoral  board  shall  meet  for  the  examination   of  the  vote  cast  before  the 
municipal  councils  or  judges  of  election  of  the  entire  province. 

Art.  37.  The  president  shall  allow  for  reading  the  register  of  the  documents 
received  by  him  up  to  one  hour  before  the  installation  of  that  body  and  shall 
exhibit  them  to  the  other  members. 

Then  shall  be  opened,  one  by  one,  the  registers  of  the  votes,  but  no  package 
shall  be  opened  until  the  votes  in  the  previous  one  have  been  counted,  nor  will 
such  registers  be  computed  when  they  have  been  received  after  the  hour  indi- 
cated in  this  article. 

Art.  3S.  The  registers  shall  be  read  aloud  by  the  secretary  of  the  board  and 
shall  be  shown  to  those  spectators  who  desire  the  same,  and  to  the  examiners  at 
the  time  of  announcing  the  votes  cast  in  favor  of  each  candidate. 

Art.  39.  The  reading  of  the  registers  concluded,  and  the  count  having  been 
made  of  the  total  number  of  votes  cast  in  each  district,  a  general  count  shall 
be  made  of  all  the  votes  cast  for  each  candidate  in  every  province,  and  the 
result  shall  be  entered  in  a  register. 

Art.  40.  The  electoral  board,  having  completed  the  general  count  to  which  the 
preceding  article  refers,  shall  declare  elected  as  delegates  and  alternates  to  the 
national  constitutional  convention  by  the  respective  electoral  districts  those  citi- 
zens who  have  received  the  majority  of  the  votes  lawfully  deposited,  and  in  the 
descending  order  of  the  same. 

The  president  of  the  board  shall  give  information  of  their  election  to  those 
chosen  and  to  the  junta  of  the  Provisional  Government,  through  the  cabinet  of 
the  Government. 

Art.  41.  Three  copies  of  the  register  shall  be  prepared  and  be  forwarded  as 
follows:  One  to  the  junta  of  the  Provisional  Government,  another  to  the  na- 
tional constitutional  convention,  and  the  third,  which  will  be  forwarded  with 
the  other  documents  of  the  board,  to  the  president  of  the  municipal  council  of 
the  capital  of  the  province,  that  they  may  be  preserved  in  the  archives. 

Art.  42.  The  electoral  board,  on  making  the  examination,  has  the  duty  of 
declaring  as  null  and  void  the  votes  cast  in  favor  of  persons  who  may  (not?) 
be  eligible  according  to  this  decree. 

Art.  43.  The  regulations  established  for  the  examination  of  elections  are 
applicable  to  the  examinations  made  by  the  electoral  boards,  provided  they  be 
not  contrary  to  those  given  in  this  chapter. 

Ciiaptkr  V. — Null  Hies. 

Art.  44.  The  popular  elections  discussed  in  this  decree  are  null  and  of  no 
value  or  effect  in  the  following  cases : 

1.  When  they  have  taken  place  on  any  other  day  than  that  assigned  in  this 
decree; 

2.  When  the  voting  and  the  examinations  respectively  have  not  been  carried 
out  in  the  presence  of  at  least  a  full  majority  of  the  members  of  the  body  of 
judges  or  the  council; 

3.  When  violence  has  been  used  against  the  examiners,  or  the  ballots  of  the 
election  have  been  mixed  with  others  or  they  have  been  lost  or  destroyed 
through    violence ; 

4.  When  the  voting  has  not  continued  throughout  the  hours  assigned  in  this 
decree ; 

5.  When  a  register  has  not  been  made  of  the  names  of  the  voters  or  it  is 
proved  that  it  has  been  falsified  or  altered;  and 

6.  When  the  examination  of  the  votes  has  been  interrupted  to  be  continued 
afterward. 

Art.  45.  The  registers  are  of  no  value : 

1.  When  it  is  proved  that  there  has  been  substantial  alteration  in  the  writing, 
after  having  been  signed  by  the  members  of  the  body ; 

2.  When  there  appear  corrections,  erasures,  or  interlineations  in  the  names 
or  surnames  of  the  candidates  or  in  the  number  of  votes  each  one  may  have 
obtained : 

3.  When  they  are  found  to  be  without  the  signatures  of  all  the  members  of  the 
municipal  council  or  of  the  judges  present  at  the  examination,  with  exception  of 
the  case  when  it  is  known  that  a  person  or  persons  have  refused  to  sign,  and  the 
cause  of  the  refusal ; 

4.  When  the  number  of  voters  multiplied  by  the  number  of  individuals  to  be 
voted  for  gives  a  result  greater  than  appears  in  the  register,  counting  the  votes 
that  have  been  declared  null  or  blank ;  and 


548  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL. 

5.  When  it  results  that  the  register  is  falsified  or  doubtful. 
Abt.  46.  The  nullities  stated  under  the  numbers  1,  2,  3,  4.  and  5  of  article  44 
include  also  those  registers  made  by  the  municipal  councils  or  judges  of  election. 

Chapter  VI. — Penalties. 

Abt.  47.  The  members  of  the  electoral  bodies  described  in  this  decree  who, 
without  the  gravest  cause,  fail  to  attend  the  installation,  shall  pay  a  fine  of 
from  twenty-five  to  fifty  dollars:  and  if  for  this  reason  the  installation  be  not 
accomplished,  the  fine  shall  be  doubled.  This  fine  will  be  imposed  by  the  mem- 
bers assembled. 

If  any  individual  fail  to  attend  any  other  session  whatever,  without  justifiable 
cause  for  the  absence,  the  fine  shall  be  from  twenty-five  to  one  hundred  dollars; 
but  should  this  prevent  the  session  from  being  held,  the  fine  will  be  from  one 
hundred  to  two  hundred  dollars. 

The  same  applies  to  those  who  attend  the  session  in  any  one  of  the  said  cases 
whatever  and  do  not  sign  the  record  of  proceedings. 

Art.  48.  He  who  commits  any  act  with  the  purpose  of  examining  the  ballot  of 
another  against  the  latter's  will,  and  of  violating  the  right  of  suffrage,  employ- 
ing force  or  fraud,  any  artifice  or  deceit  to  that  end,  shall  be  punished  with  a 
fine  of  from  one  hundred  to  five  hundred  dollars  and  from  thirty  to  sixty  days 
of  arrest. 

Art.  49.  The  members  of  the  electoral  bodies  described  in  this  decree  who.  in 
the  discharge  of  their  duties,  exercise,  or  try  to  exercise,  influence  upon  the  re- 
sult of  the  voting  or  the  examination,  shall  suffer  a  punishment  of  from  two  to 
six  months  of  imprisonment. 

Art.  50.  The  individual  who  hinders,  or  endeavors  to  hinder,  another  who 
votes,  or  who  changes  his  ballot  without  consent,  or  removes  it,  or  attempts 
to  remove  it,  or  in  any  other  manner  restrains  him  in  his  right  to  vote  for  the 
candidates  of  his  choice  or  of  his  desires,  shall  suffer  the  same  punishment  ex- 
pressed in  the  foi'egoing  article. 

Art.  51.  He  who  votes  or  attempts  to  vote  under  a  name  not  his  own,  or  at- 
tempts to  place  in  the  urn  two  or  more  envelopes,  shall  suffer  an  imprisonment 
of  from  one  to  two  years. 

Art.  52.  The  individual  who,  being  suspended  or  deprived  of  political  rights 
by  virtue  of  judicial  sentence,  attempts  to  vote  or  votes  in  the  election  for  dele- 
gates, shall  suffer  a  year  of  imprisonment,  after  which  he  suffers  the  first  sen- 
tence. 

Abt.  53.  He  who  knowingly  hinders  the  meeting  of  the  electoral  bodies,  in 
order  that  the  voting  or  examinations  may  not  take  place  with  due  punctuality, 
shall  suffer  an  imprisonment  of  from  one  to  two  years. 

Art.  54.  He  who  takes  away  the  urn  or  exercises  violence  against  the  officials 
charged  with  receiving  the  ballots  or  of  making  the  examination,  or  seizes  the 
ballots  or  the  records  of  the  examinations,  shall  be  tried  as  guilty  of  using  force 
and  violence. 

Abt.  55.  The  members  of  the  electoral  bodies  who  maliciously  give  place  to 
what  for  any  reason  causes  nullity  or  vitiates  the  voting  or  examination,  shall 
suffer  an  imprisonment  of  from  six  months  to  one  year.  If  the  act  were  com- 
mitted inadvertently  or  through  ignorance  the  penalty  shall  be  a  fine  of  from 
$100  to  $200. 

Abt.  56.  He  who  abstracts,  changes,  destroys,  or  delays  any  record  of  ex- 
amination shall  suffer  an  arrest  of  from  six  to  nine  months.  If  he  who  com- 
mitted the  act  be  a  member  of  some  electoral  body  or  public  official,  the  pun- 
ishment will  be  doubled. 

Abt.  57.  The  prefects  of  provinces,  the  mayors  of  districts,  the  inspectors  of 
police  who  do  not  give  protection  to  citizens  on  the  day  of  the  elections,  or 
who  do  not  give  their  cooperation  in  order  that  the  judges  of  election,  municipal 
councils,  and  electoral  boards  lack  nothing  at  the  time  of  complying  with  their 
obligations,  and  the  members  of  such  bodies  who  do  not  fulfill  the  duties  that 
correspond  to  them,  so  that  the  elections  and  the  examinations  may  be  car- 
ried out  promptly,  shall  pay  a  fine  of  from  $50  to  $200,  which  will  be  imposed 
by  the  Junta  of  the  Provisional  Government ;  but  if  on  account  of  the  above 
reasons  the  elections  or  examinations  are  not  carried  out  the  penalty  will  be 
doubled. 

Abt.  58.  The  members  of  the  municipal  councils  or  of  the  judges  of  election 
who,  after  having  received  votes  freely  deposited,  compute  or  count  them  in 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  549 

favor  of  persons  other  than  those  named  in  the  same,  or  who  cause  to  appear  a 
greater  number  of  votes  than  the  number  of  persons  who  have  actually  voted, 
or  who  in  any  manner  commit  fraud,  alteration,  or  omissions,  with  the  purpose 
of  favoring  certain  candidates  shall  be  considered  as  guilty  of  falsifying  public 
documents  and  judged  accordingly. 

Art.  59.  The  penalties  of  which  the  foregoing  articles  treat  shall  be  imposed 
upon  those  accountable  by  the  judges  competent  according  to  the  laws  of 
criminal  procedure,  in  case  that  power  has  not  been  attributed  to  another 
authority  by  the  present  decree.  Those  articles  shall  be  published  in  loose 
sheets  and  will  be  fixed  in  the  most  conspicuous  places  in  all  public  offices. 

Art.  60.  The  member  of  the  municipal  council  or  of  an  electoral  body  who 
withdraws  from  the  session  without  leaving  a  majority,  or  without  having  fin- 
ished the  examination,  or  without  the  registers  being  made  and  signed  and 
the  covers  that  contain  them  sealed  and  directed,  shall  pay  a  fine  of  from  $25 
to  $400.  which  will  be  imposed  by  the  highest  political  authority  of  the  province 
if  it  concerns  one  of  the  council  and  judges  of  election,  and  by  the  junta  of  the 
government  if  it  concerns  one  of  the  electoral  boards. 

Art.  61.  The  bearers  of  the  documents  of  the  elections  who  do  not  arrive  at 
their  destination  in  the  time  which  has  been  fixed  for  them,  if  it  be  not  on 
account  of  physical  impossibility,  duly  proved,  shall  suffer  imprisonment  of 
fifteen  days. 

Art.  62.  If  he  who  is  sentenced  to  payment  of  a  fine  does  not  pay  it  promptly, 
he  will  be  placed  under  arrest,  at  the  rate  of  one  day  for  each  dollar  of  the  fine; 
but  even  after  the  change  has  been  ordered  the  individual  sentenced  can  pay  the 
fine  or  the  respective  proportional  part  and  free  himself  from  arrest. 

Art.  63.  The  fines  which  are  imposed  in  conformity  with  this  decree  shall  be 
turned  into  the  treasury  of  the  Republic. 

Art.  64.  In  the  elections  which  are  to  take  place  the  electoral  bodies  by  a 
relative  majority  of  the  members  shall  decide  every  case  of  a  tie  by  lot. 

Art.  65.  The  electoral  boards  shall  be  installed  the  30th  day  of  December  of 
the  present  year,  and  for  the  making  of  the  examination  which  is  their  duty, 
the  3rd  day  of  January,  1904,  is  designated. 

Publish. 

Given  in  Panama,  on  the  12th  day  of  December,  1903. 

J.  A.  Arango. 


The  Minister  of  Government, 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Relations, 

For  the  Minister  of  Justice,  the  Subsecretary. 

The  Minister  of  the  Treasury, 

The  Minister  of  War  and  Marine, 

The  Minister  of  Public  Instruction, 


Tom  as  Arias. 
Federico  Boyd. 

Eusebio  A.  Morales. 

F.  V.  De  La  Espriella. 

Daniel  Ballen. 

Manuel    E.   Amador. 

XlCANOR    A.    DE    OBRARIO. 

Jvlio  J.  Fabrega. 


No.  15. 

HAY-CONCHA  PROTOCOL  AND  CORRESPONDENCE  BETWEEN  THE 
UNITED  STATES  AND  COLOMBIA. 

[House  Document  No.  611,   Fifty-seventh   Congress,  first   session,  r 

LETTERS  FROM  THE  COLOMBIAN  MINISTER,  ETC. 

[May  16,  1902:  Ordered  to  be  printed.] 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  May  15,  J 902. 

Sir  :  I  have  the  honor  to  inclose  copies  of  letters  from  the  Colom- 
bian minister,  dated  the  31st  of  March  and  the  18th  and  23d  of  April, 
accompanied  by  the  letter  of  exposition  and  the  letter  of  William 
Nelson  Cromwell,  both  dated  the  31st  of  March,  referred  to  in  the 
minister's  letter  of  that  date ;  and  also  a  memorandum  of  a  conven- 
tion which  the  Government  of  Colombia  is  ready  to  sign  with  that  of 
the  United  States  of  America,  respecting  the  completion,  mainte- 
nance, control,  and  protection  of  an  interoceanic  canal  over  the  Isth- 
mus of  Panama. 

I  also  inclose  a  copy  of  a  letter  which  I  addressed  to  the  minister  of 
Colombia  on  the  21st  of  April,  announcing  that  I  am  directed  by  the 
President  to  inform  him  that  I  shall  be  ready  to  sign  with  him  the 
proposed  convention  as  soon  as  the  Congress  of  the  United  States 
shall  have  authorized  the  President  to  enter  into  such  an  arrange- 
ment and  the  law  officers  of  this  Government  shall  have  decided  upon 
the  question  of  the  title  which  the  New  Panama  Canal  Company  is 
able  to  give  of  all  the  properties  and  rights  claimed  by  it  and  per- 
taining to  a  canal  across  the  Isthmus  and  covered  by  the  pending  pro- 
posal. I  inclose  also  a  project  of  a  treaty  presented  to  me  this  day  by 
the  minister  of  Nicaragua  in  behalf  of  his  Government.  I  have  not 
,ret  received  a  definite  proposition  from  the  Government  of  Costa 
xlica,  but  am  informed  by  the  Costa  Rican  minister  that  his  Govern- 
ment is  ready  to  enter  into  satisfactory  arrangement  with  that  of 
the  United  States  on  the  basis  of  the  protocol  of  December  1,  1900; 
but  that,  as  set  forth  in  the  recent  message  of  President  Iglesias,  an 
extract  from  which  I  inclose,  it  will  be  necessary  that  the  Govern- 
ment of  Costa  Pica  should,  before  entering  into  positive  negotiations 
with  that  of  the  United  States  of  America,  adopt  a  constitutional 
amendment  authorizing  the  necessary  concessions  for  the  construction 
of  an  interoceanic  canal,  or  to  have  the  matter  referred  to  public 
opinion  in  some  other  way  by  calling  a  constituent  assembly  for  the 
purpose.  I  am  assured  by  the  Costa  Rican  Government  that  these 
steps  will  be  taken  as  soon  as  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  shall 
deride  the  question  of  the  route  of  the  canal.  I  also  inclose,  in  accord- 
ance with  the  request  of  the  Nicaraguan  minister,  a  copy  of  the  pro- 
tocol entered  into  between  this  Government  and  those  of  Nicaragua 
and  Costa  Rica  December  1,  1900. 

I  have  the  honor  to  submit  all  these  documents  to  your  committee, 
with  the  hope  that  this  definite  information  as  to  the  purposes  and 

550 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  551 

intentions  of  the  Nicaraguan,  Colombian,  and  Costa  Rican  Govern- 
ments may  be  of  service  to  you  in  determining  the  question  of  the 
route  of  the  proposed  interoceanic  canal. 

In  view  of  the  great  interests  involved,  the  President  wishes  me  to 
express  to  you  and  to  the  committee  of  which  you  are  chairman,  his 
earnest  hope  that  there  may  be  as  little  delay  as  possible  in  the  legis- 
lation which  will  authorize  the  beginning  of  this  work,  which  he 
regards  as  so  important  and  so  beneficent  to  this  country  and  the 
world. 

I  am,  sir,  very  truly,  your  obedient  servant, 

John  Hay. 
Hon.  William  P.  Hepburn", 

Chairman  Committee  on  Interstate  and  Foreign  Commerce, 

House  of  Representatives. 


Legacion  de  Colombia. 
Washington,  D.  C,  March  31.  1902. 
Hon.  John  Hay, 

Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States: 
I  have  the  honor  to  hand  your  excellency  the  proposal  of  the  Re- 
public of  Colombia  for  a  concessionary  convention  or  treaty  between 
the  Republic  of  Colombia  and  the  United  States  of  America,  respect- 
ing the  completion,  maintenance,  operation,  control,  and  protection  of 
the  interoceanic  canal  over  the  Isthmus  of  Panama. 

I  soon  shall  hand  you  a  letter  of  exposition,  and  also  have  requested 
Mr.  William  Nelson  Cromwell,  general  counsel  of  the  New  Panama 
Canal  Company,  to  present  you  a  statement  which  I  have  approved. 

Please  accept  these  additional  communications  in  connection  with 
the  proposed  treaty. 

I  avail  myself  of  this  opportunity  to  renew  to  your  excellency  the 
assurance  of  my  high  consideration. 

Jose  Vicente  Concha.' 


[Translation.] 

Legation  of  Colombia, 
Washington,  D.  ('..  March  31,  1902. 
Hon.  John  Hay, 

Secretary  of  state  of  the  United  States: 

The  undersigned  envoy  extraordinary  and  minister  plenipotentiary 
of  the  Republic  of  Colombia  has  the  honor  to  supplement  the  note 
which  he  had  the  honor  to  hand  to  the  honorable  Secretary  of  State, 
together  with  the  memorandum  setting  forth  the  bases  of  a  treaty 
between  Colombia  and  the  United  States  for  the  purpose  of  securing 
the  authorization  of  Colombia  for  the  New  Panama  Canal  Company 
to  transfer  its  rights  and  privileges  to  the  American  Government  and 
of  regulating  the  relations  between  the  contracting  parties  in  respect 
of  this  enterprise. 

The  bases  have  been  formulated  after  a  serious  and  mature  consid- 
eration of  those  which  were  submitted  to  the  legation  on  the  subject 
by  the  president  of  the  Isthmian  Canal  Commission,  which  had  been 


552  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA   CANAL. 

intrusted  by  the  honorable  Secretary  of  State  with  the  discussion  of 
the  question.  The  intent  of  these  bases  has  been  to  condense  the  most 
liberal  terms  that  could  be  granted  by  Colombia  in  the  matter. 

The  Republic  that  I  represent  realizes  the  importance  of  the  con- 
templated interoceanic  waterway  for  the  civilization  and  progress  of 
the  world,  and  since  nature  has  placed  the  shortest  and  most  expedi- 
tious  route  within  the  territory  of  the  Republic,  Colombia  widely  and 
generously  opens  her  doors  so  that  the  grand  work  may  be  achieved 
within  the  shortest  possible  time. 

If  the  people  of  the  United  States  evince  an  earnest  desire  that 
their  Government  apply  its  energies  and  treasure  to  the  completion 
of  the  canal,  Colombia  not  only  will  not  place  any  obstacle  whatever 
in  the  way  of  such  a  purpose  or  keep  her  concessions  within  the 
bounds  of  those  previously  conceded  to  private  enterprise,  but  will 
enlarge  those  concessions  to  such  an  extent  as  to  renounce  a  demand 
for  the  ownership  after  the  lapse  of  a  number  of  years  of  operation, 
as  stipulated  in  the  French  company's  contract;  she  will  grant  the 
use  of  a  much  more  extensive  zone  than  that  originally  conceded  for 
the  execution  of  the  work;  extend  facilities  in  all  the  ports  of  the 
Republic  for  cooperation  in  the  work  of  the  enterprise,  relinquish  her 
proprietary  and  usufructuary  rights  in  the  Panama  Railway,  and 
lastly,  foregoes  a  fixed  participation  in  the  proceeds  of  the  canal, 
confining  her  demands  to  a  fee  or  annuity  for  the  price  of  the  zone, 
the  revenues  of  the  railway,  and  the  heavier  expenses  put  upon  the 
public  administration  in  the  Isthmus  by  the  increase  of  population 
and  the  traffic  consequent  to  the  work  on  the  canal  itself. 

Thus  does  Colombia  give  fresh  evidence  of  her  long  standing  and 
cordial  sentiments  of  friendship  toward  the  United  States  and 
evinces  in  a  clear  and  sincere  manner  the  gratification  with  which  she 
will  receive  the  industrious  and  intelligent  citizens  of  your  Republic 
in  her  territory. 

Colombia  has  no  lust  of  unjust  gain  through  the  construction  of 
the  canal  in  her  territory,  and  a  final  convention  on  this  subject  will 
not  be  hampered  by  pecuniary  considerations.  Her  pride  in  the  mat- 
ter is  bent  on  having  the  neutral  waterway  between  the  two  oceans, 
that  idea  of  universal  peace  and  progress,  become  a  reality  on  her 
territory  and  under  the  protection  of  her  sovereignty.  The  compen- 
sations asked  by  Colombia  have  special  importance  only  in  that  they 
will  imply  a  practical  and  constant  recognition  of  her  sovereignty. 

The  undersigned  has  no  doubt  that  the  mere  perusal  of  the  mem- 
orandum will  bring  forward  the  justice  and  equity  of  the  proposi- 
tions which,  if  accepted,  would  be  perfected  in  the  same  spirit. 

The  undersigned  embraces  this  opportunity  to  reiterate  to  the  hon- 
orable Secretary  the  assurances  of  his  highest  and  most  distinguished 
consideration. 

Jose  Vicente  Concha. 


Sullivan  &  Cromwell, 

New  York,  March  31,  190 J. 
Sir:    In  connection  with  the  presentation  by  Seiior  Jose  Vicente 
Concha,  minister  plenipotentiary  and  envoy  extraordinary  from  the 
Republic  of  Colombia,  of  a  proposed  concessionary  convention  or 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  553 

treaty  between  the  United  States  and  Colombia,  to  further  the  com- 
pletion, operation,  control,  and  protection  of  the  Panama  Canal  by 
the  United  States,  I  have  been  requested  by  the  minister,  in  view  of 
my  relation  to  the  subject  as  general  counsel  of  the  Panama  Cana! 
Company,  and  of  my  knowledge  of  the  minister's  views  derived  from 
our  daily  conferences  in  the  preparation  of  the  treaty,  to  submit  the 
following  reflections : 

Colombia  welcomes  the  United  States  to  its  territory,  and  will 
facilitate  in  every  way  reasonable  within  its  power  the  consummation 
of  the  desires  and  needs  of  the  United  States  for  the  completion- 
operation,  maintenance,  control,  and  protection  of  the  interoceanie 
canal  across  its  domain,  subject,  of  course,  to  the  sovereignty  of  Co- 
lombia,  and  a  reasonable  and  just  convention  between  the  two  nations, 

Colombia  views  with  admiration,  as  does  the  rest  of  the  world,  the 
splendid  magnanimity,  the  far-seeing  statesmanship,  the  virile  and 
comprehensive  policy  which  moves  this  people  to  construct  the  great- 
est undertaking  which  ever  has  engaged  the  attention  of  mankind, 
not  for  its  own  benefit  alone,  nor  with  selfish  preference  to  its  own 
commerce,  but  for  the  common  benefit,  upon  equal  terms  and  unde? 
universal  neutrality  in  times  of  peace  for  all  the  peoples  of  the  earth. 

History  does  not  furnish  another  instance  of  such  national  gener- 
osity, patriotism,  and  wisdom. 

This  could  not  but  call  out  from  Colombia  the  warmest  response; 
and  that  nation  takes  pride  in  associating  herself  with  an  affair  con- 
ducted upon  such  an  elevated  plane  of  national  and  international 
duty  and  concern. 

The  Isthmian  Canal  Commission,  a  most  distinguished  and  able 
body,  selected  with  such  care  by  President  McKinley  to  consider  all 
possible  isthmian  canal  routes  and  to  determine  which  of  them  it  is 
most  to  the  interest  of  the  United  States  to  acquire,  has  reported 
unanimously  that  the  Panama  route  is  the  most  practicable  and  feasi' 
ble  route  for  an  isthmian  canal  to  be  under  the  control,  management, 
and  ownership  of  the  United  States.  Therefore  the  solution  of  the 
problem  only  involves  two  other  conditions : 

1.  The  sale  by  the  New  Panama  Canal  Company  to  the  United 
States  of  the  concession,  property,  and  rights  of  the  canal,  with  the 
shares  of  the  Panama  Railroad  Company;  and 

2.  A  new  concessionary  convention  or  treaty  with  Colombia. 

?u  The  first  of  these  two  conditions  already  has  been  made  easy 
of  fulfillment  in  the  formal  acceptance  by  the  Xew  Panama  Canal 
Company  of  the  valuation  fixed  by  the  Isthmian  Canal  Commission— 
$40,000,000 — and  by  its  duly  authorized  proposal  to  the  United 
States  for  a  sale  of  the  property  at  that  price  (subject,  of  course,  to  a 
satisfactory  convention  being  arrived  at  between  the  United  States 
and  Colombia). 

The  sole  remaining  condition,  then,  is  the  determination  of  the  con- 
cessionary and  treaty  relations  of  the  United  States  to  a  zone  of  ter- 
ritory  across  the  Isthmus  of  Panama  necessary  for  the  consummation 
of  the  undertaking. 

There  has  not  been  a  moment  in  which  Colombia  has  not  enter- 
tained the  keenest  desire  to  further  the  designs  of  the  United  States, 
and  this  sentiment  has  prevailed  under  each  succeeding* administra- 
tion in  Colombia  and  alike  in  both  of  the  great  national  parties  who 
alternately  have  ruled  in  that  country. 


554  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL. 

This  sentiment  is  neither  new  born  nor  inspired  by  hope  of  pecun- 
iary gain.  The  two  nations  are  old  friends,  and  this  feeling  as- 
sumed practical  form  in  1846,  when  the  treaty  of  that  year  was  made, 
which  expressly  provided  for  the  construction  of  this  canal ;  in  fur- 
therance of  which  Colombia  guaranteed  to  the  United  States  the 
free  transit  of  the  Isthmus,  and  granted  extraordinary  concessions 
to  the  people  and  commerce  of  the  United  States,  upon  terms  of  per- 
fect equality  with  its  own  citizens,  while  the  United  States  in  turn 
guaranteed  the  neutrality  of  the  Isthmus  and  of  the  canal  to  be  con- 
structed upon  it,  as  well  as  the  sovereignty  of  Colombia  over  that 
territory. 

It  is  a  significant  fact  that  this  treaty  of  1840-1848,  assuring  to 
the  United  States  especial  rights  and  privileges  upon  the  Isthmus  of 
Panama  in  connection  with  any  interoceanic  canal  or  railroad  across 
the  Isthmus  of  Panama,  antedates  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty.  The 
treaty  of  1840-1848  is  in  full  force,  as  it  has  continued  to  be  with- 
out change  from  the  date  of  its  execution. 

Colombia  has  never  made  a  treaty  with  any  other  nation  upon  the 
subject  of  an  isthmian  canal,  although  it  was  at  liberty  to  do  so. 

These  treaty  ties  cementing  their  joint  design  for  the  construc- 
tion of  a  new  highway  for  the  world  have  held  the  two  nations  to- 
gether in  common  interests  and  unbroken  friendship  for  more  than 
a  half  century. 

By  granting  the  concessions  now  owned  by  the  New  Panama  Canal 
Company,  and  by  furthering  the  construction  of  the  canal  to  its 
present  advanced  stage  of  completion  by  the  old  and  new  Panama 
Canal  companies.  Colombia  initiated  the  great  work  which  now, 
happily,  the  United  States  may  consummate. 

While  the  minister  of  Colombia  was  in  Washington  for  more  than 
a  year  waiting  for  the  moment  when  the  subject  could  be  seriously 
and  attentively  discussed,  it  is  only  since  January  4.  1902.  that  any- 
thing could  be  definitely  said  or  done,  since  then,  and  then  only,  was 
a  definite  proposal  of  sale  made  by  the  canal  company.  Immediately 
thereupon.  hoAvever.  the  Government  of  Colombia,  requiring  the 
service  of  its  then  minister  in  other  important  fields,  designated  its 
minister  of  war.  Senor  Concha,  as  minister  plenipotentiary  and  envoy 
extraordinary,  to  come  at  once  from  Bogota  to  Washington,  charged 
with  its  ripest  views  and  amplest  instructions,  to  confer  with  the 
Executive  authorities  of  the  United  States,  and.  after  exchange  of 
information  and  opinions,  to  reach  a  satisfactory  convention. 

Minister  Concha  has  devoted  himself,  since  his  arrival  a  few  weeks 
ago,  absorbingly  to  this  task  and  is  prepared  to  reach  a  conclusion 
with  the  Executive  officers  of  the  Government. 

He  is  fully  empowered  to  negotiate  and  sign  a  treaty,  subject  only 
to  the  ratification  of  the  Colombian  Congress,  as  in  like  cases  with  all 
nations. 

But  Colombia  is  in  the  dark  as  to  the  precise  desires  and  needs  of 
the  United  States  upon  the  subject,  and  Minister  Concha  can  not,  of 
course,  anticipate  in  his  first  statement  all  the  reasonable  requirements 
of  this  Government.  He  wishes,  however,  to  manifest  in  the  most 
hearty  manner  the  desire  of  his  Government  to  facilitate  the  purposes 
of  the  United  States,  and  this  disposition  is  manifested  by  the  com- 
prehensive convention  which  he  has  this  day  submitted  to  you.  but 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA   CANAL.  555 

not  as  an  ultimatum.  The  establishment  of  a  canal  convention 
involves,  as  you  are  so  well  aware,  besides  the  utilization  of  a  canal 
zone  for  the  construction,  operation,  maintenance,  control,  and  pro- 
tection of  a  canal,  railroad,  and  auxiliary  works,  as  well  as  a  grant 
renewable  perpetually  and  a  consent  to  the  sale  by  the  Xew  Panama 
Canal  Company  (all  of  which  Colombia  concedes  in  the  convention 
submitted),  but  also  numerous  other  grave  questions  relating  to 
judicial  procedure,  punishment  of  crimes,  the  capture  of  criminals, 
sanitary  and  police  regulations  of  Panama  and  Colon,  proper  regard 
to  the  vested  interests  upon  the  Isthmus,  exemption  of  the  United 
States  from  all  forms  of  taxes,  port  charges,  or  other  dues,  etc. 
Quite  aside  from  pecuniary  matters,  these  are  subjects  which  only 
can  be  examined  and  negotiated  directly  with  you  in  person,  and  are 
impossible  of  negotiation  with  the  Houses  of  Congress. 

Permit  me  to  call  attention  to  the  facts  that  a  canal  convention  in 
respect  of  the  Isthmus  of  Panama  necessarily  involves  considerations 
which  do  not  relate  to  a  section  where  there  is  but  a  wilderness,  un- 
inhabited by  man.  and  producing  no  income  to  the  nation.  The  con- 
vention respecting  the  Panama  route  covers  a  zone  which  has  been 
the  pathway  of  commerce  across  the  continent  for  four  hundred 
years,  with  important  cities  at  its  termini,  with  villages  along  the 
route,  with  a  settled  population,  with  considerable  property,  and 
with  important  vested  interests  to  be  taken  into  consideration. 

All  this  represents  an  increment  of  value  in  civilizing  influences,  in 
means  of  protection,  in  expenditures  of  national  funds  for  improve- 
ment and  development,  as  well  as  in  certitude  of  engineering  plans, 
of  all  which  the  United  States  now  may  derive  the  benefit. 

It  would  be  neither  in  order  nor  fitting  for  the  canal  company  or 
myself  to  express  any  views,  one  way  or  the  other,  upon  any  of  the 
provisions  of  the  proposed  treaty,  and  our  reserve  in  that  regard  will 
be  noted.  However.  I  beg  to  refer,  by  special  request  of  the  minis- 
ter, to  Article  XXV  of  his  proposed  treaty,  and  which  article  relates 
to  the  pecuniary  terms.  Colombia  is  prepared  to  discuss,  negotiate, 
and  decide  upon  the  precise  sum  or  sums  which  may  be  reasonable  for 
the  United  States  to  pay  and  for  Colombia  to  ask,  but  as  the  subject 
is  in  the  hands  of  Congress,  and  it  seems  impracticable  at  the  moment 
to  secure  a  definite  expression  of  the  views  of  the  United  States  upon 
the  subject.  Colombia  manifests  its  good  faith  and  reasonableness  by 
proposing  that  the  annuity  shall  be  only  such  sum  as  mutually  may  be 
agreed  upon  between  the  nations,  or.  failing  in  such  agreement,  such 
fair  and  reasonable  amount  as  may  be  determined  by  a  high  commis- 
sion presided  over  by  the  president  of  the  international  peace  tribunal 
of  The  Hague,  the  remaining  members  being  nominated  in  equal  num- 
ber by  the  two  nations.  Such  annuity  would  only  be  fixed  once  in  a 
hundred  years. 

The  national  requirements  of  Colombia  make  a  payment  of  $7,000,000 
desirable,  and  you  will  note  the  provisions  on  that  head;  but  I  also 
ask  you  to  note  that  Colombia  waives  the  annuity  for  the  first  fourteen 
years.  This  method  insures  to  the  United  States  the  concessionarv 
rights  which  it  requires  and  which  can  not  be  affected  or  interrupted 
by  any  difference  or  delay  respecting  the  ascertainment  of  the  annuity. 
The  United  States  is  only  required  to  pay  such  sum  as  it  may  agree 
upon  or  as  so  may  be  determined  to  be  fair  and  reasonable.    Colombia 


556  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

does  not  ask  more  than  what  may  be  determined  to  be  fair  and  rea- 
sonable, and  surely  the  United  States  does  not  wish  to  do  less  than 
that. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  Mr.  Secretary, 
Your  obedient  servant, 

Wm,  Nelson  Cromwell, 
General  Counsel,  New  Panama  Canal  Company. 
Hon.  John  Hay, 

Secretary  of  State.  Washington*  D.  C. 


Legacion  de  Colombia, 
Washington,  D.  C,  April  18,  1902. 
Sir:  Confirming  the  conclusions  reached  as  the  result  of  the  con- 
ference held  between  yourself  and  Mr.  Cromwell,  and  adopting,  as 
far  as  practicable,  your  valuable  suggestions,  I  beg  leave  to  hand 
you  the  concessionary  convention  or  treaty  (in  Spanish  and  in  Eng- 
lish) embodying  the  amendments  agreed  upon  in  the  conference  re- 
ferred to. 

My  previous  communication  of  March  31,  1902,  proposing  the  con- 
cessionary convention  or  treaty  in  behalf  of  my  Government,  and 
the  expository  communications  of  myself  and  Mr.  Cromwell  under  the 
same  date,  apply  equally  to  the  inclosures. 

Awaiting  the  pleasure  of  your  excellency.  I  have  the  honor  to 
renew  the  assurances  of  my  high  consideration. 

J.  V.  Concha. 
Hon.  John  Hay, 

Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States, 

Department  of  State. 


Memorandv/ttb  of  points  to  he  embodied  in  a  convention  between  the 
Republic  of  Colombia  and  the  United  States  of  America  for  the 
construction  of  an  interoceanic  canal  by  the  Panama  route  and  the 
management  of  the  railroad  over  said  Isthmus,  in  furtherance  of 
article  35  of  the  treaty  of  1845-1848  existing  between  said  nations. 

I  Presented   by   the  envoy   extraordinary  and   minister  plenipotentiary   of   the   Republic  of 

Colombia.] 

Article  I. 

The  Government  of  Colombia  authorizes  the  New  Panama  Canal 
Company  to  sell  and  transfer  to  the  United  States  its  rights,  privi- 
leges, properties,  and  concessions,  as  well  as  the  Panama  Railroad 
and  all  the  shares  or  part  of  the  shares  of  that  company,  with  the 
exception  of  the  public  lands  situated  outside  of  the  zone  herein- 
after specified,  now  corresponding  to  the  concessions  to  both  said 
enterprises,  which  public  lands  shall  revert  to  the  Republic  of 
Colombia. 

But  it  is  understood  that  Colombia  reserves  all  its  rights  to  the 
special  shares  in  the  capital  of  the  New  Panama  Canal  Company  to 
which  reference  is  made  in  Article  IV  of  the  contract  of  December 
10,  1890.  which  shares  shall  be  paid  their  full  nominal  value  at  least. 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  557 

The  railroad  company  (and  the  United  States  as  owner  of  the  en- 
terprise) shall  be  free  from  the  obligations  imposed  by  the  railroad 
concession,  excepting  as  to  the  payment  at  maturity  by  the  railroad 
company  of  the  outstanding  bonds  issued  by  said  railroad  company. 

Article  II. 

The  United  States  shall  have  the  exclusive  right  to  excavate,  con- 
struct, maintain,  operate,  control,  and  protect  a  maritime  canal  from 
the  Atlantic  to  the  Pacific  Ocean,  to  and  across  the  territory  of  Co- 
lombia, such  canal  to  be  of  sufficient  depth  and  capacity  for  vessels 
of  the  largest  tonnage  and  greatest  draft  now  engaged  in  commerce, 
and  also  the  same  rights  for  the  construction,  maintenance,  operation, 
control,  and  protection  of  railway,  telegraph  and  telephone  lines, 
canals,  dikes,  dams,  reservoirs,  and  such  other  auxiliary  works  as 
may  be  necessary  and  convenient  for  the  construction,  maintenance, 
protection,  and  operation  of  the  canal. 

Article  III. 

To  enable  the  United  States  to  exercise  the  rights  and  privileges 
granted  by  the  foregoing  articles,  the  Kepublic  of  Colombia  grants  to 
that  Government  the  use  of  a  zone  of  territory  along  the  route  of  the 
canal  to  be  opened  5  kilometers  in  width  on  either  side  thereof  meas- 
ured from  its  center  line,  excluding  the  cities  of  Panama  and  Colon. 
So  far  as  necessary  for  the  construction,  maintenance,  and  operation 
of  the  canal,  the  United  States  shall  have  the  use  and  occupation  of  the 
group  of  small  islands  in  the  Bay  of  Panama,  named  Perico,  Naos,  and 
Flamenco,  together  with  10  fathoms  of  water  in  the  Bay  of  Limon  in 
extension  of  the  canal ;  but  the  same  shall  not  be  construed  as  being 
within  the  zone  herein  defined  nor  governed  by  the  special  provisions 
applicable  to  the  zone.  This  concession  shall  be  for  the  term  of  one 
hundred  years,  renewable  at  the  option  of  the  United  States  for 
periods  of  similar  durations  and  subject  to  the  payment  of  the  amount 
hereinafter  expressed. 

This  grant  shall  in  no  manner  invalidate  the  titles  of  rights  of  pri- 
vate landholders  in  the  said  zone  of  territory,  nor  shall  it  interfere 
with  the  rights  of  way  over  the  public  roads  of  the  department. 

All  the  stipulations  contained  in  article  35  of  the  treaty  of  1846- 
1848  between  the  contracting  parties  shall  continue  and  apply  in  full 
force  to  the  cities  of  Panama  and  Colon  and  to  the  accessory  com- 
munity lands  within  the  said  zone,  and  the  territory  thereon  shall  be 
neutral  territory,  and  the  United  States  shall  continue  to  guarantee 
the  neutrality  thereof  and  the  sovereignty  of  Colombia  thereover  in 
conformity  with  the  above-mentioned  article  35  of  said  treaty. 

In  furtherance  of  this  provision  there  shall  be  created  a  joint  com- 
mission by  the  Governments  of  Colombia  and  the  United  States  that 
shall  establish  and  enforce  sanitary  and  police  regulations. 

Article  IV. 

The  rights  and  privileges  granted  to  the  United  States  by  the  terms 
of  this  convention  shall  not  affect  the  sovereignty  of  the  Republic  of 


558  DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

Colombia  over  the  territory  within  whose  boundaries  such  rights  and 
privileges  are  to  be  exercised. 

The  United  States  freely  acknowledges  and  recognizes  this  sover- 
eignty and  disavows  any  intention  to  impair  it  in  any  way  whatever 
or  to  increase  its  territory  at  the  expense  of  Colombia  or  of  any  of 
the  sister  Republics  in  Central  or  South  America,  but,  on  the  con- 
trary, it  desires  to  strengthen  the  power  of  the  republics  on  this  con- 
tinent and  to  promote,  develop,  and  maintain  their  prosperity  and 
independence. 

Article  V. 

The  Republic  of  Colombia  authorizes  the  United  States  to  construct 
and  maintain  at  each  entrance  and  terminus  of  the  proposed  canal  a 
port  for  vessels  using  the  same,  with  suitable  lighthouses  and  other 
aids  to  navigation,  and  the  United  States  is  authorized  to  use  and 
occupy,  within  the  limits  of  the  zone  fixed  by  this  convention,  such 
parts  of  the  coast  line  and  of  the  lands  and  inlands  adjacent  thereto 
as  are  necessary  for  this  purpose,  including  the  construction  and 
maintenance  of  breakwaters,  dikes,  jetties,  embankments,  coaling 
stations,  docks,  and  other  appropriate  works.  And  the  United  States 
undertakes  the  construction  and  maintenance  of  such  works  and  will 
bear  all  the  expense  thereof.  The  ports  when  established  shall  be 
declared  free,  and  their  demarcations  shall  be  clearly  and  definitely 
defined. 

To  give  effect  to  this  article  the  United  States  will  give  special 
attention  and  care  to  the  maintenance  of  works  for  drainage,  sanitary, 
and  healthful  purposes  along  the  line  of  the  canal  and  its  depend- 
encies, in  order  to  prevent  the  invasion  of  epidemics,  or  of  securing 
their  prompt  suppression  should  they  appear.  With  this  end  in  view 
the  United  States  will  organize  hospitals  along  the  line  of  the  canal, 
and  will  suitably  supply  the  towns  of  Panama  and  Colon  with  the 
necessary  aqueducts  and  drainage  works,  in  order  to  prevent  their  be- 
coming centers  of  infection  on  account  of  their  proximity  to  the 
canal. 

The  Government  of  Colombia  will  secure  the  possession  of  the  land 
that  may  be  required  in  the  towns  of  Panama  and  Colon  to  effect  the 
improvements  above  referred  to.  and  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  shall  be  authorized  to  impose  and  collect  equitable  water  rates, 
previously  agreed  upon  with  the  Government  of  Colombia,  during 
fifty  years  for  the  service  rendered:  but  on  the  expiration  of  said 
term  the  use  of  the  water  shall  be  free  for  the  inhabitants  of  Panama 
and  Colon,  except  to  the  extent  that  may  be  necessary  for  the  main- 
tenance of  said  aqueducts. 

Article  VI. 

The  Republic  of  Colombia  agrees  that  it  will  not  cede  or  lease  to 
any  foreign  government  any  of  its  islands  or  harbors  within  or  adja- 
cent to  the  Bay  of  Panama;  nor  on  the  Atlantic  coast  of  Colombia, 
between  the  Atrato  River  and  the  western  boundary  of  the  depart- 
ment of  Panama,  for  the  purpose  of  establishing  fortifications,  naval 
or  coaling  stations,  military  posts,  docks,  or  other  works  that  might 
interfere  with  the  construction,  maintenance,  operation,  protection, 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  559 

safety,  and  free  use  of  the  canal  and  auxiliary  works.  In  order  to 
enable  Colombia  to  comply  with  this  stipulation,  the  Government  of 
the  United  States  agrees  to  give  Colombia  the  material  support  that 
may  be  required  in  order  to  prevent  the  occupation  of  said  islands 
and  ports,  guaranteeing  there  the  sovereignty,  independence,  and 
integrity  of  Colombia. 

Article  VII. 

The  Republic  of  Colombia  includes  in  the  foregoing  grant  the 
right,  without  obstacle,  cost,  or  impediment,  to  the  free  navigation 
and  use  of  the  waters  of  the  Chagres  River  and  other  streams,  lakes, 
and  lagoons,  and  of  all  waterways,  natural  and  artificial,  within  the 
jurisdiction  and  under  the  dominion  of  the  Republic  of  Colombia  in 
the  department  of  Panama  that  may  be  necessary  or  desirable  for 
the  construction,  maintenance,  and  operation  of  the  canal  and  its 
auxiliary  works,  including  the  right  to  raise  and  lower  the  levels  of 
the  waters  and  to  deflect  them,  and  to  rectify  and  navigate  any  and 
all  streams,  lakes,  and  lagoons.  All  damages  caused  to  private  land- 
owners by  inundation,  or  by  the  deviation  of  water  course,  or  in 
other  ways,  arising  out  of  the  construction  or  operation  of  the  canal, 
shall  in  each  case  be  appraised  and  settled  by  a  joint  commission 
appointed  by  the  Governments  of  Colombia  and  the  United  States, 
but  the  cost  of  the  indemnities  so  agreed  upon  shall  be  borne  solely 
by  the  United  States. 

Article  VIII. 

The  Government  of  Colombia  declares  free  for  all  time  the  ports  at 
either  entrance  of  the  canal  and  the  waters  thereof  in  such  manner 
that  there  shall  not  be  collected  by  the  Government  of  Colombia 
custom-house  tolls,  tonnage,  anchorage,  light-house,  wharf,  pilot,  or 
quarantine  dues,  nor  any  other  charges  or  taxes  of  any  kind  shall  be 
levied  or  imposed  by  the  Government  of  Colombia  upon  any  vessel 
using  or  passing  through  the  canal  or  belonging  to  or  employed  by 
the  United  States,  directty  or  indirectly,  in  connection  with  the  con- 
struction, maintenance,  and  operation  of  the  main  work  or  its  auxil- 
iaries or  upon  the  cargo,  officers,  crew,  or  passengers  of  any  such 
vessel:  it  being  the  intent  of  this  convention  that  all  vessels  and  their 
cargoes,  crews,  and  passengers  shall  be  permitted  to  use  and  pass 
through  the  canal  and  the  ports  leading  thereto,  subject  to  no  other 
demands  or  impositions  than  such  tolls  and  charges  as  may  be  im- 
posed by  the  United  States  for  the  use  of  the  canal  and  other  works. 
It  being  understood  that  such  tolls  and  charges  shall  be  equal  for 
vessels  of  all  nations. 

The  ports  leading  to  the  canal  also  shall  be  free  to  the  commerce 
of  the  world,  and  no  duties  or  taxes  shall  be  imposed,  except  upon 
merchandise  destined  to  be  introduced  for  the  consumption  of  the 
rest  of  the  Republic  of  Colombia,  or  the  Department  of  Panama,  and 
upon  vessels  touching  at  the  ports  of  Colon  and  Panama  and  which 
do  not  cross  the  canal.  Though  the  said  ports  shall  be  free  and  open 
to  all,  the  Government  of  Colombia  may  establish  in  them  such  cus- 
tomhouses and  guards  as  Colombia  may  deem  necessary  to  collect 
duties  on  importations  destined  to  other  portions  of  Colombia  and 
to  prevent  contraband  trade.    The  United  States  shall  have  the  right 


560  DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

to  make  use  of  the  ports  at  the  two  extremities  of  the  canal  as  places 
of  anchorage,  in  order  to  make  repairs  for  loading,  unloading,  de- 
positing, or  transshipping  cargoes  either  in  transit  or  destined  for 
the  service  of  the  canal. 

Article  IX. 

There  shall  not  be  imposed  any  taxes,  national,  municipal,  depart- 
mental, or  of  any  other  class,  upon  the  canal,  the  vessels  that  may  use 
it,  tugs  and  other  vessels  employed  in  the  service  of  the  canal,  the 
railways  and  auxiliary  works,  storehouses,  workshops,  offices,  quar- 
ters for  laborers,  factories  of  all  kinds,  warehouses,  wharves,  machin- 
ery and  other  works,  property,  and  effects  appertaining  to  the  canal 
or  railroad  or  that  may  be  necessary  for  the  service  of  the  canal  or 
railroad  and  their  dependencies,  whether  situated  within  the  cities  of 
Panama  and  Colon  or  any  other  place  authorized  by  the  provisions 
of  this  convention. 

Nor  shall  there  be  imposed  contributions  or  charges  of  a  personal 
character  of  whatever  species  upon  officers,  employees,  laborers,  and 
other  individuals  in  the  service  of  the  canal  and  its  dependencies. 

Article  X. 

It  is  agreed  that  telegraph  and  telephone  lines,  when  established  for 
canal  purposes,  may  also,  under  suitable  regulations,  be  used  for  pub- 
lic and  private  business  in  connection  with  the  systems  of  Colombia 
and  the  other  American  Republics  and  with  the  lines  of  cable  com- 
panies authorized  to  enter  the  ports  and  territory  of  these  Republics : 
but  the  official  dispatches  of  the  Government  of  Colombia  and  the 
authorities  of  the  Department  of  Panama  shall  not  pay  for  such 
service  higher  tolls  than  those  required  from  the  officials  in  the  service 
of  the  United  States. 

Article  XI. 

The  Government  of  Colombia  shall  permit  the  immigration  and 
free  access  to  the  lands  and  workshops  of  the  canal  enterprises  of  all 
employees  and  workmen  of  whatever  nationality  under  contract  to 
work  upon  the  said  canal  and  its  dependencies,  with  their  respective 
families,  and  all  such  persons  shall  be  free  and  exempt  from  the  mili- 
tary service  of  the  Republic  of  Colombia. 

Article  XII. 

The  United  States  may  import  at  any  time  into  the  said  zone,  free 
of  customs  duties,  imposts,  taxes,  or  other  charges,  and  Avithout  any 
restriction,  any  and  all  vessels,  dredges,  engines,  cars,  machinery, 
tools,  explosives,  materials,  supplies,  and  other  articles  necessary  and 
convenient  in  the  construction,  maintenance,  and  operation  of  the 
canal  and  auxiliary  works;  also  all  provisions,  medicines,  clothing, 
supplies,  and  other  things  necessary  and  convenient  for  the  officers, 
employees,  workmen,  and  laborers  in  the  service  and  employ  of  the 
United  States  within  the  said  zone  and  for  their  families.  If  any 
such  articles  are  disposed  of  for  use  without  the  zone  and  within  the 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY    OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  561 

territory  of  the  Republic,  they  shall  be  subject  to  the  same  import  or 
other  duties  as  like  articles  under  the  laws  of  Colombia  or  the  ordi- 
nances of  the  Department  of  Panama. 

Article  XIII. 

The  United  States  shall  have  authority  within  the  said  zone  to  pro- 
tect and  make  secure  the  canal,  as  well  as  railways  and  other  auxiliary 
works,  and  to  preserve  order  and  discipline  among  the  laborers  and 
other  persons  who  may  congregate  in  that  region  in  consequence  of 
the  proposed  work. 

The  Governments  of  Colombia  and  the  United  States  shall  agree 
upon  the  regulations  necessary  for  said  purpose,  as  well  as  to  the 
capture  and  delivery  of  criminals  to  the  respective  authorities.  Spe- 
cial regulations  also  shall  be  agreed  upon,  in  the  manner  aforesaid, 
for  the  establishment  of  laws  and  jurisdiction  to  decide  controversies 
that  may  arise  respecting  contracts  relative  to  the  construction  and 
management  of  the  canal  and  its  dependencies,  as  well  as  to  the  trial 
and  punishment  of  crimes  that  may  be  committed  within  the  said  zone 
of  the  canal. 

Article  XIV. 

The  works  of  the  canal,  the  railways,  and  their  auxiliaries  shall  be 
declared  of  public  utility,  and  in  consequence  all  areas  of  land  and 
water  necessary  for  the  construction,  maintenance,  and  operation  of 
the  canal  and  the  other  specified  works  may  be  expropriated  in  con- 
formity with  the  laws  of  Colombia,  except  that  the  indemnity  shall  be 
conclusively  determined,  without  appeal,  by  a  joint  commission  ap- 
pointed by  the  Governments  of  Colombia  and  the  United  States. 

The  indemnities  awarded  by  the  commission  for  such  expropriation 
shall  be  borne  by  the  United  States,  but  the  appraisal  of  said  lands 
and  the  assessment  of  damages  shall  be  based  upon  their  value  before 
the  commencement  of  the  work  upon  the  canal. 

Article  XV. 

The  Republic  of  Colombia  grants  to  the  United  States  the  use  of  all 
the  ports  of  the  Republic  open  to  commerce  as  places  of  refuge  for 
any  vessels  employed  in  the  canal  enterprise,  and  for  all  vessels  in 
distress  having  the  right  to  pass  through  the  canal  and  wishing  to 
anchor  in  said  ports.  Such  vessels  shall  be  exempt  from  anchorage 
and  tonnage  dues  on  the  part  of  Colombia. 

Article  XVI. 

The  canal,  when  constructed,  and  the  entrances  thereto  shall  be  neu- 
tral in  perpetuity,  and  shall  be  opened  upon  equal  terms  to  the  ves- 
sels of  all  nations  at  uniform  tonnage  and  other  rates  that  may  be 
imposed  in  virtue  of  the  stipulations  of  this  convention,  and  in  con- 
formity with  the  stipulations  of  the  treaty  entered  into  by  the  Gov- 
ernments of  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  on  November  18, 
1901.  and  known  as  the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty. 

42112— S.  I  >OC.  474,  63-2 :!6 


562  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL. 

Article  XVII. 

The  Government  of  Colombia  shall  have  the  right  to  transport  over 
the  canal  its  vessels,  troops,  and  munitions  of  war  at  all  times  without 
paying  charges  of  any  kind.  This  exemption  is  to  be  extended  to  the 
auxiliary  railway  for  the  transportation  of  persons  in  the  service  of 
the  Republic  of  Colombia  or  of  the  Department  of  Panama,  or  of  the 
police  force  charged  with  the  preservation  of  public  order,  as  well  as 
to  their  baggage,  munitions  of  war,  and  supplies. 

Article  XVIII. 

The  United  States  shall  have  full  power  and  authority  to  establish 
and  enforce  regulations  for  the  use  of  the  canal,  railways,  and  the  enter- 
ing ports  and  auxiliary  works,  and  to  fix  rates  of  tolls  and  charges 
thereof,  subject  to  the  limitations  stated  in  Article  XVI. 

Article  XIX. 

The  rights  and  privileges  granted  to  the  United  States  by  this  con- 
vention shall  not  affect  the  sovereignty  of  the  Republic  of  Colombia 
over  the  real  estate  that  maj^  be  acquired  by  the  United  States  by 
reason  of  the  transfer  of  the  rights  of  the  New  Panama  Canal  Com- 
pany and  the  Panama  Railroad  Company  lying  outside  of  the  said 
canal  zone. 

Article  XX. 

If,  by  virtue  of  any  existing  treaty  between  the  Republic  of  Colom- 
bia and  any  third  power,  there  may  be  privileges  or  concessions  rela- 
tive to  an  interoceanic  means  of  communication  which  especially 
favors  such  third  power,  and  which  in  any  of  its  terms  may  be  in- 
compatible with  the  terms  of  the  present  convention,  the  Republic  of 
Colombia  agrees  to  cancel  or  modify  such  treaty  in  due  form,  for 
which  purpose  it  shall  give  to  the  said  third  power  the  requisite  noti- 
fication within  the  term  of  four  months  from  the  date  of  the  present 
convention,  and  in  case  the  existing  treaty  contains  no  clause  per- 
mitting their  involuntary  annulment,  the  Republic  of  Colombia 
agrees  to  procure  its  modification  or  annulment  in  such  form  that 
there  shall  not  exist  any  conflicts  with  the  stipulations  of  the  present 
convention. 

Article  XXI. 

The  rights  and  privileges  granted  by  the  Republic  of  Colombia  to 
the  United  States  in  the  preceding  articles  are  understood  to  be  free 
of  all  anterior  concessions  or  privileges  to  other  governments,  corpo- 
rations, syndicates,  or  individuals,  and  consequently,  if  there  should 
arise  any  claims  on  account  of  the  present  concessions  and  privileges, 
the  claimants  shall  resort  to  the  Government  of  Colombia  and  not  to 
the  United  States  for  any  indemnity  or  compromise  which  may  be 
required. 

Article  XXII. 

The  Government  of  Colombia  renounces  the  participation  to  which 
it  might  be  entitled  in  the  future  earnings  of  the  canal  under  Article 
XV  of  the  contract  with  the  "  Universal  Panama  Canal  Company," 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTOEY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  563 

and  it  likewise  renounces  now  and  hereafter  all  the  rights  reserved  in 
the  said  concession  which  shall  belong  to  Colombia  at  the  expiration 
of  the  term  of  ninety-nine  years  of  the  concession  granted  to  the 
above-mentioned  company. 

Article  XXIII. 

If  it  should  become  necessary  at  any  time  to  employ  armed  forces 
for  the  safety  or  protection  of  the  canal,  or  of  the  ships  that  make  use 
of  the  same,  or  the  railways  and  other  works,  the  Republic  of  Colom- 
bia agrees  to  provide  the  forces  necessary  for  such  purpose,  accord- 
ing to  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  but  if  the  Government  of  Co- 
lombia can  not  effectively  comply  with  this  obligation,  then,  with  the 
consent  of  or  at  the  request  of  Colombia,  or  of  her  minister  at  Wash- 
ington, or  of  the  local  authorities,  civil  or  military,  the  United  States 
shall  employ  such  force  as  may  be  necessary  for  that  sole  purpose; 
and  as  soon  as  the  necessity  shall  have  ceased  will  withdraw  the  forces 
so  employed.  Under  exceptional  circumstances,  however,  on  account 
of  unforeseen  or  imminent  danger  to  said  canal,  railways,  and  other 
works,  or  to  the  lives  and  property  of  the  persons  employed  upon  the 
canal,  railways,  and  other  works,  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  is  authorized  to  act  in  the  interest  of  their  protection,  without 
the  necessity  of  obtaining  the  consent  beforehand  of  the  Government 
of  Colombia ;  and  it  shall  give  immediate  advice  of  the  measures 
adopted  for  the  purpose  stated ;  and  as  soon  as  sufficient  Colombian 
forces  shall  arrive  to  attend  to  the  indicated  purpose,  those  of  the 
United  States  shall  retire. 

Article  XXIV. 

The  Government  of  the  United  States  agrees  to  complete  the  con- 
struction of  the  preliminary  wTorks  necessary,  together  with  all  the 
auxiliary  works,  in  the  shortest  time  possible;  and  within  two  years 
from  the  date  of  the  exchange  of  ratification  of  this  convention  the 
main  works  of  this  canal  proper  shall  be  commenced,  and  it  shall  be 
opened  to  the  traffic  between  the  two  oceans  wTithin  twelve  years  after 
such  period  of  two  years.  In  case,  however,  that  any  difficulties  or 
obstacles  should  arise  in  the  construction  of  the  canal  which  are  at 
present  impossible  to  foresee,  in  consideration  of  the  good  faith  with 
which  the  Government  of  the  United  States  shall  have  proceeded,  and 
the  large  amount  of  money  expended  so  far  on  the  works  and  the 
nature  of  the  difficulties  which  may  have  arisen,  the  Government  of 
Colombia  will  prolong  the  terms  stipulated  in  this  article  up  to  twelve 
years  more  for  the  completion  of  the  work  of  the  canal. 

Article  XXV. 

As  the  price  or  compensation  for  the  right  to  use  the  zone  granted 
in  this  convention  by  Colombia  to  the  United  States  for  the  construc- 
tion of  a  canal,  together  with  the  proprietary  right  over  the  Panama 
Railroad,  and  for  the  annuity  of  $250,000  gold,  which  Colombia  ceases 
to  receive  from  the  said  railroad,  as  well  as  in  compensation  for 
other  rights,  privileges,  and  exemptions  granted  to  the  United  States, 
and  in  consideration  of  the  increase  in  the  administrative  expenses  of 
the  department  of  Panama  consequent  upon  the  construction  of  the 


564  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

said  canal,  the  Government  of  the  United  States  binds  itself  to  pay 
Colombia  the  amount  of  $7,000,000  in  American  gold  on  the  exchange 
of  the  ratification  of  this  convention  after  its  approval  by  the  legis- 
lative bodies  of  both  countries,  and  fourteen  years  after  the  date 
aforesaid  a  fair  and  reasonable  annuity,  that  shall  be  agreed  upon 
by  the  contracting  Governments  three  years  before  the  expiration  of 
the  above-mentioned  term  of  fourteen  years. 

In  fixing  this  fair  and  reasonable  annuity  there  shall  be  taken  into 
consideration  the  present  price  of  the  usufruct  of  the  railway  as  well 
as  the  compensation  that  is  to  be  stipulated  for  the  use  of  the  zone 
and  for  the  additional  administrative  expenses  that  the  construction 
of  the  canal  will  impose  upon  Colombia ;  and  also  the  advanced  pay- 
ment of  $7,000,000  and  the  comparative  cost  and  conditions  upon 
which  the  United  States  reasonably  could  have  expected  to  acquire 
concessions  satisfactory  to  it  in  respect  of  any  other  canal  route. 

Three  years  before  the  expiration  of  each  term  of  one  hundred 
years  the  annuity  for  the  following  term  shall  be  fixed  in  a  similar 
manner. 

But  in  the  event  that  the  parties  are  unable  to  come  to  an  under- 
standing within  the  periods  above  referred  to  as  to  such  fair  and  rea- 
sonable annuity,  then  before  the  second  year  prior  to  the  termination 
of  the  periods  above  referred  to,  the  contracting  parties  shall  proceed 
to  constitute  a  high  commission,  to  be  composed  of  five  members,  of 
whom  two  shall  be  appointed  by  Colombia,  two  by  the  United  States, 
and  the  fifth  (who  shall  be  the  president  of  such  high  commission) 
shall  be  the  president,  for  the  time  being,  of  the  International  Peace 
Tribunal  of  The  Hague ;  and  the  determination  reached  by  said  com- 
mission, by  a  majority  vote,  concerning  such  fair  and  reasonable 
annuity  that  is 'to  be  paid  to  Colombia  by  the  United  States  in  con- 
formity with  this  article,  shall  be  binding  upon  the  contracting 
parties. 

But  no  delay  nor  difference  of  opinion  in  fixing  such  amount  shall 
affect  nor  interrupt  the  full  operation  and  effect  of  this  convention  in 
all  other  respects. 

Article  XXVI. 

If  after  the  lapse  of  five  years  from  the  date  of  this  convention  the 
necessary  works  for  the  opening  of  the  canal  should  not  have  been, 
commenced  by  the  United  States,  or  if  after  the  expiration  of  the 
twelve  years  stipulated  for  the  completion  of  the  work,  and  the  exten- 
sion Of  twelve  years  referred  to  in  Article  XXIV,  the  canal  should 
not  be  opened  to  commerce,  all  the  concessions  granted  by  this  con- 
vention shall  be  forfeited  and  all  the  works,  principal  and  accessory, 
machinery  and  properties  of  the  canal,  shall  become  the  property  of 
the  Republic  of  Colombia,  and  the  same  Republic  shall  recover  its 
actual  rights  over  the  Panama  Railway,  without  any  obligation  to 
return  any  of  the  sums  that  it  may  have  received  in  conformity  with 
this  convention. 

Article  XXVII. 

This  convention,  when  signed  by  the  contracting  parties,  shall  be 
submitted  for  legislative  approval,  and  shall  be  exchanged  within  a 
term  of  eight  months  from  this  date. 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  565 

Department  of  State, 
Washington,  April  21,  1902. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  receipt  at  your  hands  of  a 
communication  dated  the  31st  of  March.  1902,  and  another  of  the 
18th  of  April,  inclosing  a  proposal  of  the  Republic  of  Colombia  for 
a  concessionary  convention  or  treaty  between  the  Republic  of  Colom- 
bia and  that  of  the  United  States  of  America  respecting  the  comple- 
tion, maintenance,  operation,  control,  and  protection  of  an  inter- 
oceanic  canal  over  the  Isthmus  of  Panama. 

I  am  directed  by  the  President  to  inform  you  that  I  shall  be  ready 
to  sign  with  you  the  proposed  convention  as  soon  as — 

First.  The  Congress  of  the  United  States  shall  have  authorized  the 
President  to  enter  into  such  an  arrangement :  and 

Second.  As  soon  as  the  law  officers  of  this  Government  shall  have 
decided  upon  the  question  of  the  title  which  the  New  Panama  Canal 
Company  is  able  to  give  of  all  the  properties  and  rights  claimed  by  it 
and  pertaining  to  a  canal  across  the  Isthmus  and  covered  by  the 
pending  proposal. 

Accept,  sir,  the  renewed  assurances  of  my  highest  consideration. 

John  Hay. 

Seiior  Don  Jose  Vicente  Concha. 


[Translation.] 

Legation  of  Colombia. 
Washington.  D.  C,  April  23, 1902. 
Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  reception  of  your  excel- 
lency's communication  of  the  21st  instant,  by  which  you  are  pleased 
to  inform  me  that  you  are  authorized  by  the  President  of  the  United 
States  to  sign  with  the  Republic  of  Colombia  the  treaty  relative  to 
the  opening  of  the  Panama  Canal,  and  the  other  details  connected 
with  the  said  work,  in  accordance  with  the  draft  I  submitted  to  the 
Government  of  the  United  States  on  the  18th  instant,  and  that  you 
will  proceed  to  do  so  as  soon  as  permission  shall  have  been  given  by 
the  Congress  of  this  Republic,  and  as  the  official  lawyers  shall  have 
given  their  opinion  regarding  the  title  of  the  new  canal  company  for 
the  transfer  of  its  rights. 

When  the  occasion  to  sign  the  above-mentioned  treaty  shall  arise  I 
will  present,  according  to  usage,  the  full  powers  authorizing  me  to 
do  so. 

Accept,  excellency,  the  sentiments  of  my  high  consideration. 

Jose  Vicente  Concha. 
Hon.  John  Hay, 

Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States, 

Departm-ent  of  State. 


[Translation.] 

Mr.  Corea  to  Mr.  Hay,  May  14,  1902. 

In  pursuance  of  the  offer  made  orally  and  in  my  personal  note  of 
the  12th  instant  to  your  excellency,  I  have  the  honor  to  transmit  here- 


566  DIPLOMATIC    HISTOEY    OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

with  a  draft  of  a  treaty  embodying  the  proposal  of  my  Government 
touching  the  interoceanic  canal  through  Nicaragua.  This  draft,  save 
a  few  changes  which  I  had  to  make  in  obedience  to  superior  orders, 
is  the  same  as  that  which  your  excellency  prepared  on  February  12 
and  was  pleased  to  amend  on  March  11  and  '25  and  on  April  26  last 
in  deference  to  observations  presented  by  me. 

If  your  excellency  will,  as  you  said  to  me  you  would,  lay  this  pro- 
posal before  the  proper  committees  of  Congress,  I  should  be  pleased  if 
it  were  accompanied  by  the  protocol  on  the  same  subject  which  I  had 
the  honor  to  sign  with  your  excellency  on  December  1,  1900.  These 
papers  will  show  that  Nicaragua  has  been  and  is  still  disposed  to  enter 
into  direct  negotiations  with  the  United  States  as  soon  as  provision 
therefor  shall  have  been  made  by  Congress,  and  at  the  same  time 
make  it  clear  that,  since  no  decision  has  yet  been  reached  by  that  body 
in  the  matter,  the  present  proposal  is  not  to  be  taken  as  final,  but 
remains  subject  to  amendments  by  which  the  conclusion  of  a  perfected 
and  more  suitable  agreement  between  the  contracting  parties  may  be 
facilitated. 

Please  accept,  Mr.  Secretary,  the  assurances  of  my  most  distin- 
guished consideration. 

DRAFT. 

The  United  States  of  America  and  the  Republic  of  Nicaragua,  being 
desirous  to  assure  the  construction  of  a  ship  canal  to  connect  the 
Atlantic  and  Pacific  Oceans,  have  for  that  purpose  resolved  to  con- 
clude a  convention,  and  have  accordingly  appointed  as  their  pleni- 
potentiaries : 

The  President  of  the  United  States, 

The  President  of  the  Republic  of  Nicaragua, 


Who,  after  communicating  to  each  other  their  full  powers,  which 
were  found  to  be  in  due  form,  have  agreed  upon  the  following  articles : 

Article  I. 

The  Republic  of  Nicaragua  leases  in  perpetuity  to  the  United 
States  the  exclusive  right  to  construct,  own,  and  operate  a  ship  canal 
through  the  territory  of  Nicaragua,  to  connect  the  Atlantic  and  Pa- 
cific Oceans. 

The  United  States  guarantees  in  perpetuity  the  sovereignty,  inde- 
pendence, and  territorial  integrity  of  the  Republic  of  Nicaragua. 

No  change  either  in  the  Government  or  in  the  laws  or  treaties  of 
Nicaragua  shall,  without  the  consent  of  the  United  States,  affect  any 
right  of  the  United  States  under  the  present  convention,  or  under  any 
treaty  stipulation  between  the  two  countries  (that  now  exist  or  that 
may  hereafter  exist)  touching  the  subject  matter  of  this  convention. 

If  Nicaragua  shall  hereafter  enter  as  a  constituent  into  any  other 
Government,  or  into  any  union  of  confederation  of  States  so  as  to 
merge  her  sovereignty  or  independence  in  such  Government,  union, 
or  confederation,  the  rights  of  the  United  States  under  this  conven- 
tion shall  not  be  in  any  respect  lessened  or  impaired;  and  the  United 
States  will  thereupon  be  released  for  the  time  being  from  all  obliga- 
tion to  guarantee  the  sovereignty,  independence,  or  territorial  integ- 
rity of  the  Republic  of  Nicaragua. 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  567 

Article  II. 

The  United  States,  after  the  adoption  by  Congress  of  legislation 
to  carry  this  convention  into  effect,  will  proceed  without  delay,  at  its 
own  cost  and  without  expense  to  Nicaragua,  to  construct  the  canal 
on  the  route  which  it  shall  determine  to  be  the  most  practicable ;  and 
it  shall  have  the  right  to  use,  without  cost,  any  water,  stone,  clay, 
earth,  or  other  material  belonging  to  Nicaragua,  on  the  public  do- 
main, that  may  be  needed. 

The  canal  is  hereby  declared  to  be  a  work  of  public  utility. 

Neither  the  Government  of  Nicaragua  or  any  of  its  authority  shall 
obstruct  or  interfere  with  the  United  States  either  in  its  preliminary 
exploration  and  surveys,  or  in  the  work  of  construction,  or  in  the 
management,  control,  and  preservation  of  the  canal  when  completed. 

Article  III. 

The  United  States  shall  have  the  right  to  make  excavations  to  such 
depths,  and  to  raise  embankments  and  dam  streams  to  such  height,  as 
shall,  in  its  opinion,  be  necessary  for  the  proper  and  safe  construction, 
improvement,  operation,  repair,  and  maintenance  of  the  canal  and  the 
control  of  the  waters  appurtenant  to  it. 

If,  in  the  construction  or  operation  of  the  canal,  or  of  any  works  in 
connection  therewith,  any  lands  within  Nicaraguan  territory  belong- 
ing to  the  Republic,  or  to  private  persons,  should  be  overflowed,  no 
claim  shall  be  made  against  the  United  States  on  account  of  these 
belonging  to  Nicaragua ;  nor  shall  the  claims  of  any  private  person,  on 
account  of  the  overflow  of  lands,  be  permitted  in  any  manner  to  hinder 
or  delay  the  United  States  in  the  construction  or  operation  of  the  canal 
or  of  any  work  in  connection  therewith,  but  the  United  States  engages 
to  make  compensation  in  proceeding  to  condemn  such  lands  for  the 
intended  public  uses,  had  as  provided  in  Article  V  of  this  convention. 

Article  IV. 

When  the  route  of  the  canal  shall  have  been  determined,  the  entire 
area  of  land  and  water  to  the  distance  of  five  miles  on  each  side  of  the 
center  line  thereof,  during  the  construction  period,  and  of  three  miles 
on  each  side  of  the  center  line  thereof  as  soon  as  the  canal  shall  have 
been  completed  and  in  operation,  shall  constitute  a  district  to  be  called 
the  "  canal  district."  This  district  shall  extend  to  the  distance  of  one 
marine  league  from  low-water  mark  into  the  Caribbean  Sea  and  the 
Pacific  Ocean,  and  shall  comprehend  such  part  of  the  San  Juan  Kiver 
and  of  Lake  Nicaragua  and  of  the  adjacent  territory  of  Nicaragua  as 
may  be  included  within  the  above-mentioned  limits.  The  concession 
hereby  made  to  the  United  States  includes  the  right  to  construct  anrl 
operate  between  the  terminal  ports,  and  on  lands  within  or  adjacent  to 
the  canal  district,  and  around  the  southeast  shore  of  Lake  Nicaragua, 
such  railways,  telegraphs,  telephones,  and  other  auxiliary  works,  and 
to  erect  and  use  such  buildings,  workshops,  and  other  structures,  as 
may  be  necessarv  to  secure  continuity  of  communication  along  the 
line  of  the  canal  and  between  the  said  terminal  ports,  and  be  use- 
ful in  the  construction,  improvement,  operation,  repair,  and  mainte- 
nance of  the  canal. 


568  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

If  by  reason  of  topographical  conditions,  according  to  the  judg- 
ment of  the  contracting  parties,  said  railways,  telegraphs,  telephones, 
and  other  auxiliary  works  should  at  any  place  require  unavoidably  to 
be  carried  or  lie  at  a  greater  distance  than  five  miles  from  the  center 
line  of  the  canal  during  the  construction  period,  or  be  found  at  a 
greater  distance  than  three  miles  from  the  center  line  after  the  canal 
shall  have  been  completed  and  put  into  operation,  there,  as  well  as 
around  the  southeastern  shore  of  Lake  Nicaragua,  shall  be  included 
an  area  of  five  hundred  feet  wide  on  each  side  of  said  railways,  tele- 
graphs, telephones  or  other  auxiliary  works,  and  the  said  areas,  as 
well  as  the  railways,  telegraphs,  telephone  buildings,  workshops,  and 
other  structures  and  the  lands  on  which  they  are  situated,  shall  be 
considered  as  a  part  of  the  canal  and  within  the  canal  district  for 
the  purposes  of  this  convention. 

Article  V. 

When  the  canal  district  is  established,  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  will  furnish  the  Government  of  Nicaragua  with  a  map 
showing  the  limits  thereof,  as  established  by  this  convention:  and 
thereupon  the  right  of  entry,  occupation,  possession,  use,  and  control 
of  all  the  lands  and  waters  of  Nicaragua  comprised  in  such  district 
shall  be  considered  as  granted  by  a  lease  in  perpetuity  to  the  United 
States  for  the  purpose  of  the  canal. 

Areas  of  land  and  water  so  comprised  that  form  part  of  the  public 
domain  of  Nicaragua  shall  pass  into  the  possession,  use,  and  control 
of  the  United  States  without  any  cost  or  charges.  If  any  areas  of 
land  or  water  so  taken,  or  any  right,  title,  estate,  use,  or  interest 
therein,  are  claimed  at  the  date  of  this  convention  as  the  property, 
legal  or  equitable,  of  private  persons  or  corporations,  the  United 
States  may  acquire  such  rights,  titles,  estates,  use,  or  interests,  by 
purchase  from  the  owners,  or,  failing  in  that,  may  proceed  to  con- 
demn them,  as  stated  further  on  in  this  convention. 

For  the  purpose  of  fixing  the  compensation  to  be  paid  by  the  United 
States  in  the  condemnation  proceedings  contemplated  in  Articles  III 
and  V,-  a  mixed  commission  of  four  jurists  of  repute,  two  to  be 
appointed  by  each  of  the  contracting  parties,  shall  assess  and  award 
the  damages  to  be  paid  by  the  United  States.  The  procedure  and 
regulations  to  be  observed  by  said  commission  for  the  taking  of  evi- 
dence, and  in  the  trial  of  cases  to  condemn  and  award  damages,  shall 
be  in  accordance  with  the  laws  of  Nicaragua  not  in  conflict  with  this 
convention.  The  damages  awarded  shall  be  compensatory  only  and 
fixed  without  reference  to  appreciation  of  values  by  the  contemplated 
or  actual  construction  of  the  canal.  In  case  of  disagreement  of  the 
commission  on  the  amount  of  damages  to  be  awarded  in  any  case,  an 
umpire  shall  be  appointed  by  the  two  Governments  who  shall  render 
the  decision,  and  in  case  the  Governments  do  not  agree  in  the  ap- 
pointment, this  umpire  shall  be  selected  by  lot  from  four  candidates, 
two  presented  by  each  party.  In  the  event  of  death,  absence,  or  inca- 
pacity of  any  such  commissioner  or  umpire,  or  of  his  omitting,  de- 
clining, or  ceasing  to  act,  his  place  shall  be  filled  by  the  appointment 
of  another  person  in  the  manner  above  indicated. 

All  decisions  by  a  majority  of  the  commission  or  by  the  umpire 
shall  be  final.     They  shall  keep  a  record  of  their  proceedings,  of 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL.  569 

which  they  shall  furnish  each  Government  a  copy.  They  shall  main- 
tain an  office  at  Managua,  and  shall  exercise  their  functions  there  or 
at  such  other  points  in  Nacaragua  as  they  may  find  convenient. 

Article  YI. 

Condemnation  proceedings  may  be  begun  by  the  United  States  by 
filing  in  the  office  of  the  commission  at  Managua  an  instrument  declar- 
ing its  intention  to  appropriate  any  or  all  titles,  estates,  rights,  uses, 
and  interests  of  every  description,  legal  or  equitable,  of  persons,' 
societies,  and  corporations  in  and  to  land  and  water  areas  within  the 
canal  district,  and  it  may  in  like  manner  institute  proceedings  to  con- 
demn and  appropriate  such  titles,  estates,  rights,  uses,  and  interests 
in  land  and  water  areas  outside  of  and  adjacent  to  said  canal  district 
to  enable  said  Government  to  construct,  repair,  and  operate  said 
canal. 

Said  instrument  of  appropriation  shall  contain  a  general  descrip- 
tion of  said  land  and  water  areas  and  of  the  title,  estate,  right,  use,  or 
interest  therein  intended  to  be  appropriated,  which  shall  belong  to 
the  Government  of  the  United  States  on  making  payment  therefor  as 
hereinafter  provided.  Said  Government  may  purchase  any  such 
title,  estate,  right,  use,  or  interest  of  the  owner  thereof,  or,  if  the  lat- 
ter is  under  legal  disabilities,  of  his  guardian  or  other  representative 
or  person  competent  to  contract  in  his  behalf,  and  the  deed  therefor 
when  made  and  delivered  shall  vest  the  property  purchased  in  the 
United  States. 

Or  said  Government  may  at  its  option  proceed,  upon  filing  said  act 
of  appropriation,  by  giving  ten  days'  notice  by  personal  service  on 
said  owner  or  by  publication  for  the  term  of  three  wTeeks  to  all  whom 
it  may  concern,  in  some  newspaper  to  be  designated  by  standing 
order  of  the  commission  of  an  advertisement,  said  notice  or  adver- 
tisement reciting  the  substance  of  such  instrument  of  appropriation ; 
and  upon  completed  service  of  said  notice,  either  personally  or  by 
publication,  said  Government  may  deposit  for  the  use  of  the  owners, 
in  American  gold,  with  a  bank  or  other  fiscal  agent  to  be  designated 
by  standing  order  of  the  commission,  a  sum  which  said  Government 
is  willing  to  pay  for  the  title,  estate,  rights,  uses,  or  interests  appro- 
priated, and  the  same  shall  thereupon  belong  to  the  United  States. 

If  the  owner  or  owners  refuse  or  fail  to  accept  as  sufficient  compen- 
sation the  moneys  so  deposited  for  their  use  as  aforesaid,  the  com- 
mission or  umpire,  as  the  case  may  be,  shall  proceed  to  assess  and 
award  the  damages,  and  shall  in  like  manner  also  determine  in  alt 
cases  the  person  or  persons  justly  entitled  to  receive  said  moneys 
deposited  and  awarded,  and  order  equitable  distribution  thereof. 
Said  proceedings  before  the  commission  or  umpire  shall  only  affect 
the  amount  or  compensation  to  be  awarded  and  the  distribution 
thereof.  Any  sum  awarded  in  addition  to  that  already  deposited 
shall  be  deposited  in  like  manner  as  the  original  for  the  use  of  the 
persons  entitled  thereto. 

Article  VII. 

The  sovereignty  of  Nicaragua  and  the  laws  of  the  Eepublic  not 
inconsistent  with  this  convention  shall  be  in  full  force  in  the  Nicara- 
guan   territory   comprised   in   the   canal   district.     But   the   United 


570  DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

States,  for  the  protection  of  said  district  and  of  its  rights  therein, 
and  in  order  to  make  effective  its  guarantee  of  the  sovereignty,  inde- 
pendence, and  territorial  integrity  of  Nicaragua  and  Costa  Kica,  shall 
use  its  civil  police  forces  and  shall  have  at  all  times  the  free  and 
unobstructed  right  to  enter  to  the  canal  district  with  its  land  and 
naval  forces  and  to  adopt  therein  such  measures  as  may  be  necessary 
for  the  accomplishment  of  those  purposes,  as  well  as  for  the  protec- 
tion of  life,  liberty,  and  property,  and  for  the  preservation  of  peace 
and  good  order;  and  shall  also  have  the  right  to  unite  its  forces  with 
the  forces  of  Nicaragua  and  Costa  Rica  for  said  purposes. 

Article  VIII. 

A  free  port  shall  be  established  for  the  transit  at  each  of  the 
entrances  of  the  canal,  on  the  Caribbean  Sea  and  the  Pacific  Ocean, 
under  the  protection  of  the  United  States  and  subject  to  harbor  and 
other  regulations  as  to  anchorage,  lights,  and  pilotage  that  shall  be 
adopted  by  the  United  States.  At  these  ports  the  United  States  shall 
have  the  right  to  establish,  construct,  and  maintain  lighthouses  and 
other  aids  to  navigation,  breakwaters,  dikes,  jetties,  embankments, 
clocks,  wharves,  coaling  stations,  and  other  appropriate  works,  and 
the  United  States  will  undertake  the  construction  and  maintenance  of 
such  works  and  will  bear  all  the  expense  thereof. 

Nicaragua  may  establish  customhouses  at  such  ports  and  at  any 
convenient  points  along  the  route  of  the  canal  for  the  collection  of 
duties  on  goods  intended  for  importation  into  or  exportation  from  the 
canal  district  and  the  rest  of  the  Republic.  If  said  points  happen  to 
be  within  said  leased  territory  they  should  be  selected  by  agreement 
of  the  contracting  parties  at  the  request  of  Nicaraugua.  The  United 
Mates  shall  have  the  right  to  introduce  into  the  canal  district  directly 
through  the  free  ports  or  by  way  of  any  Nicaraguan  port  and  exempt 
from  all  taxes  and  custom  duties  all  machinery,  equipment,  material 
stores,  and  supplies  of  any  kind  which  may  be  necessary  for  the  con- 
struction, improvement,  operation,  repair,  and  maintenance  of  the 
canal,  and  for  the  exclusive  use  of  the  officials,  workmen,  and  other 
dependent  of  the  United  States  employed  in  the  canal  district. 

Vessels  of  commerce  and  men-of-war  of  all  nations  shall  pass  freely 
into  and  through  the  canal  without  any  discrimination  as  to  tolls  or 
other  charges,  subject  to  the  laws  and  regulations  established  by  the 
United  States  to  secure  that  object. 

Vessels  owned  by  the  United  States  or  its  citizens  and  vessels  owned 
by  Nicaragua  or  its  citizens  may  navigate  freely  any  part  of  Lake 
Nicaragua  within  the  leased  district,  and  the  commanders  may  enter 
or  moor  their  vessels  therein,  it  being  understood  that  the  laws  of 
Nicaragua  regarding  coasting  trade  are  not  to  be  infringed,  and  that 
the  ordinary  port  due  shall  be  paid.  Should  any  vessel  in  transit 
be  forced  to  diverge  from  the  leased  district  in  Lake  Nicaragua  on 
account  of  injury  or  distress,  it  shall  be  permitted  to  navigate  the 
waters  of  the  lake,  but  without  entering  or  mooring  in  a  port  thereof 
except  in  case  of  necessity  in  order  to  land  and  forward  passengers 
and  mail  in  transit  and  to  procure  supplies  and  make  indispensable 
repairs,  to  which  latter  end  the  discharge  and  reshipment  or  transfer 
of  cargo  shall  be  permitted  when  needful;  and  such  vessels  shall 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  571 

return  to  the  canal  district  as  soon  as  the  causes  that  may  have  forced 
it  to  diverge  therefrom  shall  have  ceased. 

The  preceding  stipulation  does  not  comprehend  the  vessels  of  war 
belonging  to  the  United  States,  which  may  at  any  time  navigate  the 
Lake  Nicaragua  and  moor  in  its  ports  on  official  visit  or  for  the  pur- 
poses stipulated  in  this  convention. 

Article  IX. 

The  United  States  and  Nicaragua  agree  that,  subject  to  the  stipula- 
tions of  the  present  convention,  the  provisions  of  the  treaty  of  Con- 
stantinople of  October  29th,  1888,  relating  to  the  Suez  Canal,  as  herein 
stated,  shall  form  the  basis  on  which  the  navigation  of  the  canal  and 
the  neutrality  of  the  canal  district  shall  rest,  viz : 

1.  The  canal  shall  be  free  and  open  to  the  vessels  of  commerce  and 
war  of  all  nations  observing  these  rules  on  terms  of  entire  equality  so 
that  there  shall  be  no  discrimination  against  any  such  nation  or  its 
citizens  or  subjects  in  respect  to  the  conditions  or  charges  of  traffic 
or  otherwise.  Such  conditions  and  charges  of  traffic  shall  be  just  and 
equitable. 

2.  The  canal  shall  never  be  blockaded  nor  shall  any  right  of  war  be 
exercised  nor  any  act  of  hostility  committed  within  it. 

3.  Vessels  of  war  of  a  belligerent  shall  not  revictual  nor  take  any 
stores  in  the  canal  except  so  far  as  may  be  strictly  necessary  and  the 
transit  of  such  vessels  through  the  canal  shall  be  effected  with  the 
least  possible  delay  in  accordance  with  the  regulations  in  force  and 
with  only  such  intermission  as  may  result  from  the  necessities  of  the 
services. 

Prizes  shall  be  in  all  respects  subject  to  the  same  rules  as  vessels  of 
war  of  the  belligerent. 

4.  No  belligerent  shall  embark  or  disembark  troops,  munitions  of 
war,  or  warlike  materials  in  the  canal  except  in  case  of  accidental 
hindrance  of  the  transit,  and  in  such  case  the  transit  shall  be  resumed 
with  all  possible  dispatch. 

5.  The  provisions  of  this  article  shall  apply  to  waters  adjacent  to 
the  canal  within  three  marine  miles  of  either  end.  Vessels  of  war 
of  a  belligerent  shall  not  remain  in  such  waters  longer  than  twenty- 
four  hours  at  any  one  time  except  in  case  of  distress,  and  in  such  case 
shall  depart  as  soon  as  possible ;  but  a  vessel  of  war  of  one  belligerent 
shall  not  depart  within  twenty-four  hours  from  the  departure  of  a 
vessel  of  war  of  the  other  belligerent. 

6.  The  plant,  establishments,  buildings,  and  all  works  necessary  to 
the  construction,  maintenance,  and  operation  of  .the  canal  shall  be 
deemed  to  be  part  thereof  for  the  purposes  of  this  convention,  and  in 
time  of  Avar,  as  in  time  of  peace,  shall  enjoy  complete  immunity  from 
attack  or  injury  by  belligerents  and  from  acts  calculated  to  impair 
their  usefulness  as  a  part  of  the  canal. 

Article  X. 

Nicaragua  covenants  with  the  United  States  and  guarantees  that  no 
concession,  grant,  or  license  for  the  purpose  of  trade,  commerce, 
transportation,  navigation,  or  for  the  construction  of  a  ship  canal  in 


572  DIPLOMATIC   HISTOBY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

or  through  Nicaraguan  territory  has  been  made  to  any  other  Govern- 
ment, corporation,  syndicate,  or  person,  natural  or  juridical,  which 
in  any  manner  encumbers  or  conflicts  with  the  lease  and  the  rights 
and  privileges  hereby  granted. 

Article  XI. 

Although  maintaining  that  upon  principles  of  justice  no  valid 
claims  of  citizens  of  the  United  States  exist  against  Nicarauga,  the 
latter  accepts  the  engagement  of  the  United  States  to  pa}^  and  to  dis- 
charge Nicaragua  from  all  liability  on  account  of  claims  of  citizens  of 
the  United  States  which  may  have  arisen  prior  to  the  date  of  the 
signing  of  this  convention. 

Article  XII. 

Within  ninety  days  after  the  exchange  of  ratifications  of  this  con- 
vention the  United  States  will  pay  to  the  Government  of  Nicaragua, 
at  Washington,  the  sum  of  six  million  dollars  in  the  gold  coin  of  the 
United  States  as  a  compensation  for  the  concessions  and  privileges 
herein  granted ;  and  an  annual  rent  of  twenty-five  thousand  dollars  in 
the  gold  coin  of  the  United  States  shall  be  paid  by  the  United  States 
to  the  Government  of  Nicaragua  for  the  possession  of  the  territory, 
leased  for  the  purposes  aforesaid. 

Article  XIII. 

This  convention  shall  take  effect  immediately  upon  the  exchange  of 
ratifications,  and,  except  as  amended  or  abrogated  by  mutual  consent 
of  the  contracting  parties,  shall  be  perpetual. 

The  ratifications  shall  be  exchanged  at  Washington  as  soon  as 
possible. 

In  witness  whereof  the  respective  plenipotentiaries  have  signed  this 
convention  and  affixed  thereto  their  seals. 

Done  in  duplicate  at  the  city  of  Washington  this day  of , 

nineteen  hundred  and . 


Protocol  of  an  agreement  between  the  Governments  of  the  United 
States  and  of  Nicaragua  in  regard  to  future  negotiations  for  the 
construction  of  an  inieroceanic  canal  by  way  of  Lake  Nicaragua. 

It  is  agreed  between  the  two  Governments  that  when  the  President 
of  the  United  States  is  authorized  by  law  to  acquire  control  of  such 
portion  of  the  territory  now  belonging  to  Nicaragua  as  may  be  desir- 
able and  necessary  on  which  to  construct  and  protect  a  canal  of  depth 
and  capacity  sufficient  for  the  passage  of  vessels  of  the  greatest  ton- 
nage and  draft  now  in  use,  from  a  point  near  San  Juan  del  Norte  on 
the  Caribbean  Sea,  via  Lake  Nicaragua  to  Brito  on  the  Pacific  Ocean, 
they  mutually  engage  to  enter  into  negotiations  with  each  other  to 
settle  the  plan  and  the  agreements,  in  detail,  found  necessary  to  ac- 
complish the  construction  and  to  provide  for  the  ownership  and  con- 
trol of  the  proposed  canal. 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL.  573 

As  preliminary  to  such  future  negotiations  it  is  forthwith  agreed 
that  the  course  of  said  canal  and  the  terminals  thereof  shall  be  the 
same  that  were  stated  in  a  treaty  signed  by  the  plenipotentiaries  of 
the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  on  February  5,  1900,  and  now 
pending  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  for  confirmation,  and  that 
the  provisions  of  the  same  shall  be  adhered  to  by  the  United  States 
and  Nicaragua. 

In  witness  whereof,  the  undersigned  have  signed  this  protocol  and 
have  hereunto  affixed  their  seals. 

Done  in  duplicate  at  Washington,  this  first  day  of  December,  1900. 

[seal.]  John  Hay. 

[seal.]  Louis  F.  Corea. 

Protocol  of  an  agreement  between  the  Governments  of  the  United 
States  and  of  Costa  Rica  in  regard  to  future  negotiations  for  the 
construction  of  an  interoceanic  canal  by  waif  of  Lake  Nicaragua. 

It  is  agreed  between  the  two  Governments  that  when  the  President 
of  the  United  States  is  authorized  by  law  to  acquire  control  of  such 
portion  of  the  territory  now  belonging  to  Costa  Rica  as  may  be  desir- 
able and  necessary  on  which  to  construct  and  protect  a  canal  of  depth 
and  capacity  sufficient  for  the  passage  of  vessels  of  the  greatest 
tonnage  and  draft  now  in  use,  from  a  point  near  San  Juan  del  Norte, 
on  the  Caribbean  Sea,  via  Lake  Nicaragua  to  Brito,  on  the  Pacific 
Ocean,  they  mutually  engage  to  enter  into  negotiations  with  each 
other  to  settle  the  plan  and  the  agreements,  in  detail,  found  necessary 
to  accomplish  the  construction  and  to  provide  for  the  ownership  and 
control  of  the  proposed  canal. 

As  preliminary  to  such  future  negotiations  it  is  forthwith  agreed 
that  the  course  of  said  canal  and  the  terminals  thereof  shall  be  the 
same  that  were  stated  in  a  treaty  signed  by  the  plenipotentiaries  of 
the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  on  February  5,  1900.  and  now 
pending  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  for  confirmation,  and 
that  the  provisions  of  the  same  shall  be  adhered  to  by  the  United 
States  and  Costa  Rica. 

In  witness  whereof  the  undersigned  have  signed  this  protocol  and 
have  hereunto  affixed  their  seals. 

Done  in  duplicate  at  Washington  this  first  day  of  December.  1900. 

[seal.]  John  Hay. 

[seal.]  J.  B.  Calvo. 


[Extract  from  the  message  of  SeQor  Rafael  Iglesias,  President  of  Costa  Rica,  to  the 
Constitutional  Congress.] 

There  are  better  prospects  at  this  than  at  any  other  time  that  the 
project  of  construction,  by  and  under  the  control  of  the  United  States 
of  America,  of  an  interoceanic  canal  across  the  Central  American 
Isthmus  will  be  carried  out. 

Costa  Rica  being  directly  interested  in  the  construction  of  that 
great  work,  by  reason  of  a  portion  of  her  territory  that  may  have  to 
be  occupied,  the  Government  of  the  United  States  has  opened  with 
that  Government  negotiations  looking  to  the  conclusion  of  a  treaty 


574  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

whose  fundamental  terms  are  that  the  United  States  will  be  authorized 
to  occupy,  under  the  head  of  a  perpetual  lease,  a  certain  belt  of  terri- 
tory  for  the  construction,  administration,  and  operation  of  the  canal, 
and  to  exercise  therein  the  jurisdiction  which  properly  belongs  to  our 
sovereignty. 

In  return  for  these  and  other  minor  concessions  we  are  offered  the 
guaranty  of  the  independence  and  sovereignty  of  Costa  Rica  and  of 
the  integrity  of  her  territory  and  the  payment  to  the  Government  of 
a  million  and  a  half  dollars.  In  view  of  the  great  and  paramount 
importance  of  this  matter.  I  deemed  it  expedient  to  call  an  advisory 
board  consisting  of  persons  of  well-known  ability  and  patriotism  in 
order  to  enlighten  me  in  so  delicate  and  grave  a  question.  A  com- 
mittee under  the  chairmanship  of  the  secretary  of  state  for  the  de- 
partment of  foreign  relations  was  appointed  among  the  members  of 
that  board.  This  committee  has  discharged  its  duties  in  a  satisfactory 
manner  touching  all  the  points  which  in  its  opinion  do  not  contravene 
the  spirit  of  our  political  institutions,  in  conformity  to  the  provisions 
of  the  fundamental  code  as  regards  the  integrity  of  the  territory  and 
the  exercise  of  sovereignty.  In  consequence  thereof  the  Government 
is  powerless  to  enter  into  positive  negotiations  with  that  of  the  United 
States  of  America  unless  there  should  be  previously  passed  a  con- 
stitutional amendment  by  which  such  concessions  for  the  construction 
of  the  interoceanic  canal  may  be  authorized,  or  the  matter  referred  to 
public  opinion  in  some  other  way  by  calling  a  constituent  assembly 
for  the  purpose. 


No.  16. 

PRESIDENT'S  MESSAGE  GIVING  CORRESPONDENCE  SHOWING 
RELATIONS  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES  WITH  COLOMBIA  AND 
PANAMA. 

[Senate  Document  No.  542,   Sixtieth  Congress,  second  session.] 

CORRESPONDENCE  IN  REGARD  TO  THE  RELATIONS  OF  THE  UNITED 
STATES    WITH    COLOMBIA   AND    PANAMA. 

MESSAGE  FROM  THE  PRESIDENT  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES  TRANSMITTING 
CORRESPONDENCE  BETWEEN  THE  UNITED  STATES  AND  THE  REPUBLIC 
OF  COLOMBIA,   GROWING   OUT  OF   THE   SECESSION    OF   PANAMA. 

[December  S,  190S :  Read;  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations  and 

ordered  to  be  printed.] 

To  the  Senate: 

I  transmit  herewith  the  accompanying  papers  in  response  to  the 
resolution  of  the  Senate  of  May  5,  1908,  requesting  the  President,  "  if 
not  in  his  judgment  incompatible  with  the  interests  of  the  public 
service,  to  communicate  to  the  Senate  all  correspondence  since  Janu- 
ary eighteenth,  nineteen  hundred  and  four,  relative  to  any  further 
request  by  Colombia  for  arbitration,  if  such  request  was  made,  and 
any  response  of  this  Government  thereto." 


The  White  House,  December  8,  1908. 


Theodore  Roosevelt. 


The  President: 

The  undersigned  Secretary  of  State  to  whom  was  referred  the  reso- 
lution of  the  Senate  of  May  5,  1908,  requesting  the  President,  "  if  not 
in  his  judgment  incompatible  with  the  interests  of  the  public  service, 
to  communicate  to  the  Senate  all  correspondence  since  January 
eighteenth,  nineteen  hundred  and  four,  relative  to  any  further  request 
by  Colombia  for  arbitration,  if  such  request  was  made,  and  any 
response  of  this  Government  thereto."  has  the  honor  to  lay  before  the 
President  copies  of  the  papers  listed  below. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

Elihu  Root. 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  June  i,  1908. 


List  of  Papers. 

Colombian  minister  to  the  Secretary  of  State,  October  21,  1905. 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  the  Colombian  minister,  February  10,  1906. 

The  Colombian  minister  to  the  Secretary  of  State,  April  6,  1906. 

American  minister  at  Bogota  to  the  Secretary  of  State,  telegram,  May  26,  1906, 

extract. 
Secretary  of  State  to  the  American  minister  at  Bogota,  telegram,  June  2,  1906, 

extract. 
American  minister  at  Bogota  to  the  Secretary  of  State,  telegram,  June  7,  1906, 

extract. 
American  legation  at  Bogota  to  the  Secretary  of  State,  August  20,  1906. 

575 


576  DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY    OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

The  Colombian   minister  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

[Translation.] 

1 

Legation  or  Colombia, 
Washington,  D.  6'.,  October  21,  1905. 

Sir:  The  undersigned,  representative  of  the  weak  Republic  of 
Colombia,  deems  this  an  opportune  moment  to  turn  to  you,  as  repre- 
sentative of  the  most  powerful  Republic  of  modern  times,  with  the 
request  for  a  just,  equitable,  and  complete  diplomatic  adjustment 
of  the  differences  which  have  arisen  between  the  two  nations;  or,  if 
this  should  not  be  practicable,  or  if,  once  brought  about,  it  should 
fail  to  produce  satisfactory  results  for  both  or  either  of  the  parties, 
the  undersigned  would  request  that  a  convention  be  signed  which 
should  submit  such  differences  to  some  form  of  arbitration  honorable 
for  both  countries.  The  undersigned  has  all  the  more  reason  to 
hope  for  a  favorable  response  to  his  proposition  because  the  ques- 
tions pending  between  Colombia  and  the  United  States  are  of  ex- 
actly the  same  nature  as  those  to  which  the  numerous  arbitration 
treaties  relate  which  have  been  concluded  by  your  Government  with 
many  other  nations,  both  great  and  small,  within  less  than  a  year. 
These  said  treaties,  as  you  know  very  well,  were  submitted  by  the 
President  to  the  Senate  on  December  14,  1904.  and.  with  slight 
amendments  which  do  not  affect  in  the  least  the  propositions  of  the 
undersigned,  were  all  ratified  almost  unanimously  by  the  Senate  of 
the  United  States;  so  that  the  branches  of  your  Government  which 
have  the  authority  to  conclude  treaties  were  in  happy  accord  con- 
cerning the  suitability  of  settling  by  arbitration  the  controversies 
mentioned  in  those  treaties.  The  text  of  these  treaties  embraces 
"  the  differences  of  a  legal  nature  which  may  arise,  or  which  relate 
to  the  interpretation  of  the  treaties  existing  between  the  contract- 
ing parties,  and  which  it  has  been  impossible  to  settle  through  diplo- 
macy": the  only  exceptions  are  those  which  may  "affect  the  vital 
interests,  the  independence,  or  the  honor  of  the  nation,  or  Avhich 
may  compromise  the  rights  of  third  parties." 

The  request  which  the  undersigned  hereby  makes  for  the  conclu- 
sion of  an  arbitration  convention  between  your  country  and  his — 
in  case  the  proposed  diplomatic  adjustment  should  fail — is  exactly 
comprised  within  the  provisions  cited.  The  differences  which  have 
arisen,  as  he  will  have  the  honor  to  explain  further  on.  are  of  a  legal 
character;  refer  to  the  interpretation  of  a  treaty  in  force  between  the 
two  contracting  parties;  do  not  in  anywise  affect  the  vital  interests, 
the  independence,  or  the  honor  of  the  United  States,  and  do  not 
compromise  the  interests  of  third  parties.  Inasmuch  as  all  the 
reclamations  against  the  United  States  which  the  Republic  of  Co- 
lombia desires  to  have  submitted  to  an  impartial  court  of  arbitration 
for  settlement  are  differences  of  a  legal  nature  between  the  two  coun- 
tries, involving,  on  the  one  hand,  the  correct  meaning  of  the  law  of 
nations,  and.  on  the  other,  the  exact  interpretation  of  the  treaty  of 
1846  existing  between  the  two  countries,  it  can  not  be  claimed  on 
any  grounds  that  they  affect  the  vital  interests,  or  the  independence, 
or  the  honor  of  the  United  States,  and  much  less  can  it  be  claimed 
that  they  impair  the  rights  of  third  parties. 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  577 

The  request  of  the  undersigned  being  clearly  and  precisely  within 
the  very  course  of  the  international  policy  of  the  United  States, 
both  as  regards  direct  diplomatic  adjustments,  of  which  several 
cases  could  be  cited,  and  as  regards  arbitration,  which  latter  is  pal- 
pably demonstrated  in  the  various  treaties  presented  recently  by 
the  President  to  the  Senate  (December  14,  1904),  and  in  these 
respects  ratified  by  that  body,  the  undersigned  can  not  bring  himself 
to  believe  that  it  is  really  necessary  to  adduce  any  more  arguments 
in  asking  you  to  accede  to  his  proposition.  If  other  reasons  were 
necessary,  they  could  be  found  in  the  long  and  honorable  history  of 
the  United  States,  which  has  so  persistently  advocated  and  fostered 
the  peaceful  and  honorable  adjustment  of  difficulties  through  direct 
diplomacy  and  arbitration  as  the  best  means  of  deciding  controver- 
sies between  nations.  The  upholding  of  this  great  and  noble  cause 
originated,  in  fact,  as  you  know,  with  the  creation  of  the  Govern- 
ment of  your  country  and  found  its  most  recent  confirmation  in  the 
treaty  submitted  to  the  Senate  last  year,  and  to  which  reference  has 
already  been  made.  The  undersigned  takes  the  liberty,  nevertheless, 
of  calling  your  attention  to  the  following  memorable  words  of  Presi- 
dent Eoosevelt  in  his  inaugural  address : 

Much  has  been  conceded  to  us,  and  much,  therefore,  is  justly  expected  of  us. 
We  have  duties  to  fulfill  toward  others,  as  well  as  toward  ourselves,  and  we 
can  not  neglect  either.  We  have  come  to  be  a  great  nation,  obliged  from  the 
very  fact  of  our  greatness  to  maintain  relations  with  the  other  nations  of  the 
earth,  and  we  must  conduct  ourselves  as  becomes  a  people  with  such  great 
responsibilities.  Toward  all  other  nations,  both  great  and  small,  our  duty  must 
be  to  cherish  cordial  and  sincere  friendship.  We  must  prove,  not  only  by  our 
words  but  also  by  our  actions,  that  we  are  ardently  desirous  of  winning  their 
good  will  by  acting  toward  them  with  a  spirit  of  just  and  generous  respect  for 
all  their  rights.  But  justice  and  generosity  in  nations,  just  as  in  individuals, 
have  greater  significance  when  exercised,  not  by  the  weak  but  by  the  powerful. 

A  just  and  generous  respect  for  her  right  to  have  the  questions 
pending  between  Colombia  and  the  United  States  equitably  adjusted 
by  diplomatic  means,  or,  failing  the  latter,  submitted  to  the  decision 
of  an  impartial  court,  is  exactly  what  Colombia,  the  weak  State, 
demands  to-day  of  the  United  States,  the  powerful  nation;  and, 
cherishing  the  assurance  that  such  a  diplomatic  arrangement  or  such 
arbitration  will  be  granted,  the  undersigned  takes  the  liberty  of  set- 
ting forth,  as  clearly  and  succinctly  as  possible,  the  nature  of  the 
differences  between  the  two  nations.  The  undersigned  feels  no  need 
of  stating  that  his  words  will  be  guided  by  a  spirit  of  the  greatest 
moderation. 

The  general  treaty  of  peace,  amity,  navigation,  and  commerce  of 
1846  between  New  Granada,  now  the  Republic  of  Colombia,  and  the 
United  States  established  the  rights  and  the  obligations  of  the  two 
contracting  parties.  The  undersigned  will  not  tire  you  now  with 
an  analysis  of  the  principal  stipulations  of  the  treaty,  but  will  confine 
himself  to  saying  that  certain  concessions  which  were  then  considered 
of  great  value  to  your  nation  were  granted  in  exchange  for  what 
was  deemed  valuable  protection  for  Colombia.  This  protection,  for 
the  purposes  of  this  note,  may  be  said  to  be  comprised  in  article  35  of 
the  treaty,  and  especially  in  the  following  clause:  "And  in  order  to 
secure  to  themselves  the  tranquil  and  constant  enjoyment  of  these 
advantages  and  as  an  especial  compensation  for  the  said  advantages 

42112— S.  Doc.  474,  63-2 37 


578  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA   CANAL. 

and  for  the  favors  they  have  acquired  by  the  fourth,  fifth,  and  sixth 
articles  of  this  treaty,  the  United  States  guarantee  positively  and 
efficaciously  to  New  Granada  " — now  the  Republic  of  Colombia — "  by 
the  present  stipulation,  the  perfect  neutrality  of  the  beforemen- 
tioned  isthmus,  with  a  view  that  the  free  transit  from  the  one  to  the 
other  sea  may  not  be  interrupted  or  embarrassed  in  any  future 
time  while  this  treaty  exists;  and  in  consequence  the  United  States 
also  guarantee,  in  the  same  manner,  the  rights  of  sovereignty  and 
property  which  "New  Granada  " — now  the  Republic  of  Colombia — 
"  has  and  possesses  over  said  territory." 

During  the  full  vigor  of  this  treaty  between  the  United  States  and 
Colombia  the  following  facts  occurred,  as  Colombia  believes,  although 
you  may  refute  them  or  viewT  them  in  a  different  light : 

1.  In  September  and  October,  1903,  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  promised  certain  interests  located  on  the  Isthmus  of  Panama, 
as  well  as  persons  interested  in  the  French  Canal  Company,  that  the 
United  States  would  prevent  the  Republic  of  Colombia  from  combat- 
ing any  disturbance  which  might  arise  on  the  Isthmus. 

2.  In  fulfillment  of  these  promises,  war  vessels  of  the  United  States 
were  sent  both  to  Panama  and  to  Colon  in  October  and  during  the 
first  days  of  November,  1903. 

3.  On  November  2,  1903,  the  commanders  of  said  war  vessels 
received  the  following  telegrams,  sent  by  the  Department  of  State 
through  the  Navy  Department,  as  is  believed : 

(a)  Keep  the  transit  free  and  uninterrupted.  Should  there  be  a  threat  of 
interruption  by  armed  force,  occupy  the  railroad  line;  prevent  the  landing  of 
any  armed  force  having  hostile  intentions,  whether  of  the  Government  or  in- 
surgent, at  Colon,  Portobelo,  or  any  other  point.  Prevent  landing  if  in  your 
judgment  it  might  precipitate  a  conflict. 

(&)  In  case  of  doubt  regarding  the  intentions  of  any  armed  force,  occupy 
Ancon  Hill  and  fortify  it  with  artillery. 

4.  At  3.40  p.  m.  of  November  3,  1903,  Mr.  Loomis,  Assistant  Sec- 
retary of  State,  acting,  sent  the  following  telegram  to  the  person  in 
charge  of  the  United  States  consulate  in  Panama  :  "  We  are  informed 
that  there  has  been  an  uprising  on  the  Isthmus ;  keep  this  department 
informed  of  everything  without  delay."  The  consul  of  the  United 
States  answered  on  the  same  day :  "  The  uprising  has  not  occurred 
yet ;  it  is  announced  that  it  will  take  place  this  evening.  The  situa- 
tion is  critical." 

5.  At  8.45  p.  m.  of  the  same  day,  November  3,  1903,  the  following 
telegram,  signed  "  Loomis,  Acting."  was  delivered  to  the  person  in 
charge  of  the  United  States  consulate  in  Panama :  "  The  troops  which 
landed  from  Cartagena  must  not  continue  to  Panama ;  "  and  by  virtue 
of  this  telegram,  the  officer  commanding  the  American  war  ship 
Nashville  gave  orders  to  the  Panama  Railroad  Company  not  to  trans- 
port troops  of  the  Colombian  Government  to  the  city  of  Panama. 

6.  At  10.30  p.  m.  of  the  same  day,  November  3,  1903,  another 
telegraphic  dispatch  from  the  State  Department  was  sent  to  the 
American  consul  in  Panama,  reading  as  follows:  "If  the  cablegram 
to  the  Nashville" — one  of  the  said  war  vessels — "has  not  been  de- 
livered, inform  her  captain  immediately  that  he  must  prevent  the 
Government  troops  from  continuing  on  to  Panama  or  from  assuming 
an  attitude  which  might  result  in  bloodshed,  and  that  he  must  make 
every  effort  to  maintain  order  on  the  Isthmus." 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA   CANAL.  579 

7.  On  the  same  clay,  November  3,  1903,  the  following  telegram  was 
transmitted  from  Colon  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy  by  the  com- 
mander of  one  of  the  aforementioned  war  vessels  stationed  there:  "I 
acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  telegram  of  November  2.  Before 
receiving  it,  there  were  landed  here  this  morning  by  the  Colombian 
Government  about  four  hundred  men  from  Cartagena.  There  is  no 
revolution  on  the  Isthmus,  nor  any  disturbance.  The  railroad  com- 
pany has  refused  to  transport  these  troops  unless  the  governor  of 
Panama  requires  it.  The  demand  has  not  been  made.  It  is  possible 
that  the  movement  to  proclaim  independence  maj^  take  place  in 
Panama  this  evening.  *  *  *  "  (Here  there  is  missing  a  part  of 
the  dispatch  as  printed.) 

8.  At  9.50  p.  m.  of  the  same  date,  November  3,  1903,  the  Depart- 
ment of  State  received  from  the  vice  consul  of  the  United  States  in 
Panama  the  following  telegram  :  "The  revolt  took  place  this  evening 
at  0 ;  there  has  been  no  bloodshed.  The  oflicers  of  the  army  and  navy 
have  been  reduced  to  prison.  The  government  will  be  organized  this 
evening  and  will  be  composed  of  three  consuls  and  a  cabinet.  The 
soldiers  have  been  exchanged.  It  is  believed  that  a  similar  move- 
ment will  take  place  in  Colon.  Up  to  the  present  order  has  prevailed. 
The  situation  is  serious.  Four  hundred  soldiers  landed  in  Colon 
to-day  from  Barranquilla." 

On  the  same  day,  November  3,  1903,  General  Tovar  arrived  at 
Colon  with  the  battalion  of  sharpshooters  of  the  Colombian  army,  a 
force  more  than  sufficient  to  repress  the  aforementioned  uprising. 

9.  At  11.18  p.  m.  of  the  same  day,  November  3,  1903,  Mr.  Loomis, 
Assistant  Secretary  of  State,  acting,  telegraphed  to  the  vice  consul  of 
the  United  States  in  Panama :  "  The  telegraphic  dispatch  sent  to  the 
Nashville  at  Colon  may  not  have  been  delivered.  See,  therefore,  that 
the  following  dispatch  is  transmitted  to  the  Nashville  immediately: 
1  Nashville,  Colon :  In  the  interest  of  peace  make  every  effort  in  order 
to  prevent  the  troops  of  the  Government  at  Colon  from  continuing  to 
Panama.  Transit  on  the  Isthmus  must  be  kept  open  and  order 
maintained.  Acknowledge  receipt.  (Signed)  Darling,  Acting.' 
Obtain  a  special  train  if  it  should  be  necessary.    Act  with  speed." 

10.  On  the  following  day,  November  4,  1903,  Hubbard,  commander 
of  one  of  the  war  vessels  stationed  at  the  time  at  Colon,  addressed 
the  Secretary  of  the  Navy  as  follows:  "Government  troops  nOw  at 
Colon.  I  have  prohibited  the  movement  of  troops  in  either  direction. 
There  has  been  no  interruption  of  transit  yet.  I  shall  make  every 
effort  to  preserve  peace  and  order." 

11.  On  the  same  day,  November  4,  1903,  the  American  consul  in 
Panama  received  the  following  communication  :  "  We  have  the  honor 
to  inform  you,  for  your  own  knowledge  and  that  of  the  government 
which  you  represent,  that  on  this  very  date  there  has  taken  place  a 
movement  by  which  the  old  Department  of  Panama  has  separated 
from  the  Republic  of  Colombia,  with  the  object  of  constituting  a  new 
State  by  the  name  of  '  Republic  of  Panama  '  ;  and  that  the  under- 
signed have  had  the  honor  of  being  designated  to  form  the  commit- 
tee of  the  Provisional  Government  of  the  Republic." 

12.  Two  days  later — that  is,  November  6,  1903 — the  Secretary  of 
State  telegraphed  to  the  vice  consul  in  Panama  in  the  following 
terms:  "The  people  of  Panama  by  an  apparently  unanimous  move- 


580  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA   CANAL. 

ment,  have  severed  their  political  bonds  with  the  Republic  of  Colom- 
bia and  have  resumed  their  independence.  As  soon  as  yon  are  con- 
vinced that  a  de  facto  government,  republican  in  form  and  without 
substantial  opposition  on  the  part  of  its  own  people,  has  been  estab- 
lished on  the  Isthmus  of  Panama,  you  will  enter  into  relations  with  it 
as  the  responsible  government  of  the  territory,  and  you  will  address 
to  it  a  request  that  it  take  the  measures  necessary  for  the  protection 
of  the  persons  and  the  property  of  citizens  of  the  United  States,  and 
that  it  keep  open  the  transit  on  the  Isthmus  in  accordance  with  the 
obligations  of  the  existing  treaties  which  govern  the  relations  of  the 
United  States  with  that  territory." 

13.  On  the  same  date,  November  6,  1903,  the  commander  of  one 
of  the  war  vessels  communicated  as  follows  to  the  Secretary  of  the 
Navy :  "  I  arrived  yesterday  afternoon ;  I  landed  forces.  The  situa- 
tion is  as  follows :  A  little  before  landing,  the  Colombian  troops  had 
departed  on  the  steamer  Orinoco  for  Cartagena.  The  independent 
party  is  in  possession  of  Colon,  of  Panama,  and  of  the  railroad  line. 

The  Nash  ville  withdrew  her  forces." 

14.  On  the  following  day,  November  7,  1903,  the  vice  consid  of 
the  United  States  sent  the  following  note  to  the  so-called  committee 
which  represented  the  would-be  revolution :  "  Inasmuch  as  the  peo- 
ple of  Panama,  by  a  unanimous  movement,  have  broken  their  political 
bonds  with  the  Republic  of  Colombia  and  resumed  their  independ- 
ence, and  as  there  is  no  opposition  to  the  provisional  government  in 
the  State  of  Panama,  I  hereby  inform  you  that  the  provisional 
government  will  be  held  responsible  for  the  protection  of  the  per- 
sons and  property  of  the  citizens  of  the  United  States,  as  well  as  for 
the  maintenance  of  free  transit  on  the  Isthmus,  in  accordance  with 
the  stipulations  of  the  treaties  in  force  regarding  the  territory  of  the 
said  Isthmus." 

15.  On  the  following  day,  November  8,  1903,  a  telegram  was  sent 
to  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy  by  the  commander  of  one  of  the  Ameri- 
can war  vessels,  as  follows :  "  Everything  quiet ;  traffic  uninterrupted ; 
the  telegram  in  which  I  was  ordered  to  interfere  was  received."  On 
that  same  day  the  vice  consul  of  the  United  States  in  Panama  stated, 
in  a  telegram  to  the  Secretary  of  State,  as  follows :  "  The  Colombian 
troops  were  reembarked  for  Cartagena  by  the  Royal  Mail.  It  is 
believed  that  the  Bogdto  is  at  Buenaventura.     Peace  reigns." 

16.  Four  days  later,  on  November  11,  1903,  the  minister  of  the 
United  States  in  Bogota  informed  the  Colombian  Republic  that  the 
Government  of  the  United  States  had  entered  into  relations  with  the 
so-called  new  Republic  of  Panama. 

17.  Two  days  afterwards,  on  November  13,  1903,  the  Government 
of  the  United  States  officially  received  Mr.  Bunau-Varilla,  a  French 
citizen  interested  in  the  French  Canal  Company,  as  minister  pleni- 
potentiary of  Panama. 

18.  On  the  following  day,  November  14,  1903,  the  minister  of  the 
United  States  in  Bogota  notified  the  Colombian  Republic  as  follows : 
"I  have  just  received  instructions  from  my  Government  by  cable  to 
notify  you  that  it  does  not  deem  it  suitable  to  permit  Colombian 
troops  to  land  on  the  Isthmus,  because  this  would  precipitate  civil 
war  and  would  indefinitely  interrupt  the  free  transit  which  my  Gov- 
ernment is  obligated  to  protect." 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTOEY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL.  581 

19.  General  Reyes,  commander  at  that  time  of  the  Colombian  forces 
sent  to  repress  the  so-called  rebellion  on  the  Isthmus — which  troops 
were  more  than  sufficient  for  the  purpose — had  announced  to  Vice 
Admiral  Coghlan,  commander  of  one  of  the  United  States  war  ves- 
sels, his  intention  to  embark  his  troops  and  to  proceed  to  Panama  in 
order  to  restore  order  there;  and  the  vice  admiral,  in  reply,  notified 
him  that  his  orders  were  to  prevent  the  landing  of  troops  with  hostile 
designs  within  the  limits  of  the  State  of  Panama. 

20.  On  November  18,  1903,  the  Secretary  of  State  of  the  United 
States  and  the  said  Bunau-Varilla  signed  a  treaty  the  purpose  of 
which  was  to  arrange  a  compact  between  the  United  States  and  the 
so-called  Republic  of  Panama.  By  article  1  of  this  treaty  the  United 
States  expressly  and  positively  guarantee  and  obligate  themselves  to 
uphold  the  independence  of  the  so-called  Republic  of  Panama. 

The  foregoing  recital,  taken  principally  from  the  official  records  as 
they  were  transmitted  by  the  President  to  the  Senate  when  the  treaty 
between  the  United  States  and  the  so-called  Republic  of  Panama  was 
being  discussed  in  that  body,  amply  justifies,  in  the  opinion  of  the 
undersigned,  the  following  conclusions,  in  which  you  may  not  per- 
haps agree  with  him. 

(a)  The  well-known  favorable  attitude  of  the  United  States  toward 
a  rebellious  uprising  in  the  Department  of  Panama  was  the  determin- 
ing cause  of  the  revolt,  and  to  this  extent  it  was  a  violation  of  the 
express  stipulations  of  the  treaty  of  1816. 

(b)  The  United  States,  by  means  of  their  armed  forces,  prevented 
the  Republic  of  Colombia  from  repressing  the  aforesaid  rebellion  and 
so  preserving  the  integrity  of  her  national  territory,  this  being  also  in 
violation  of  the  positive  stipulations  of  the  treaty. 

{e)  The  United  States  recognized  with  undue  haste  the  so-called 
Republic  of  Panama,  to  the  detriment. of  the  rights  and  interests  of 
the  Republic  of  Colombia,  and  this  recognition  annulled  the  express 
stipulations  of  the  treaty  of  1846  and  disregarded  the  principles  es- 
tablished by  the  law  of  nations. 

(cl)  The  United  States  guaranteed  to  maintain  by  force  the  sep- 
aration of  Panama  from  the  Republic  of  Colombia,  not  only  against 
the  explicit  stipulations  of  the  treaty  of  1846,  but  also,  and  iii  view  of 
the  time  at  which  this  obligation  was  contracted,  in  violation  of  the 
duties  of  neutrals  under  the  law  of  nations. 

I  therefore  take  the  liberty  of  again  calling  your  attention  to  the 
fact  that  each  of  these  injuries  which  Colombia  maintains  was 
inflicted  on  her  by  the  United  States  assumes  the  character  of  a 
controversy  of  a  legal  nature,  or  of  a  difference  regarding  the  correct 
interpretation  of  the  treaty  existing  between  the  two  contracting 
parties.  In  the  opinion  of  the  Government  of  the  undersigned,  these 
acts  of  the  United  States  were  the  sole  and  only  cause  of  the  dis- 
memberment of  the  Republic  of  Colombia,  of  the  loss  to  her  of  the 
valuable  and  important  Department  of  Panama,  and  of  the  loss  of 
her  rights  in  contracts,  one  referring  to  the  Isthmian  Canal,  in  course 
of  construction,  and  the  other  to  the  Panama  Railroad,  already  con- 
structed across  that  Department. 

The  undersigned  does  not  flatter  himself  that  you  will  be  disposed 
to  admit  the  justice  of  these  reclamations.  On  the  contrary,  he  sup- 
poses that  they  will  be  denied  by  you.    If  this  should  be  the  case,  it 


582  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL. 

appears  to  be  clear  that  the  only  practicable  means  of  adjustment, 
honorable  for  both  countries,  would  be  to  submit  them  to  the  decision 
of  an  impartial  court  of  arbitration.  On  the  other  hand,  if  your 
Government  were  disposed  to  admit  the  justice  of  Columbia's  recla- 
mations [complaints],  a  path  would  be  happily  opened  toward  a 
prompt  and  satisfactory  adjustment  by  direct  diplomacy. 

The  undersigned  is  aware  that  it  is  not  his  place  to  point  out  the 
manner  in  which  this  court  should  be  constituted  before  knowing 
your  views  on  the  matter;  however,  as  a  mere  hint  at  the  facility 
with  which  it  might  be  formed,  he  ventures  to  respectfully  suggest 
that  each  country  should  without  delay  appoint  a  distinguished 
jurist  of  its  own  nationality  to  represent  it,  and  that  the  selection 
of  the  umpire  be  made  by  the  chief  magistrate  of  an  absolutely  disin- 
terested nation. 

It  does  not  appear  necessary  to  remind  you  that  if  such  a  court  is 
constituted  and  the  United  States  have  committed  no  injury  against 
the  Republic  of  Colombia,  their  conduct  will  be  fully  vindicated. 
At  all  events,  the  worst  that  could  happen  to  the  United  States 
would  be  a  decision  that  they  had  inflicted  an  injury  on  a  weak  sister 
Republic  while  seeking  what  they  thought  to  be  of  universal  benefit 
and  the  exaction  from  the  United  States  of  the  appropriate  indem- 
nity. In  either  case  the  result  would  be  a  settlement  of  all  contro- 
versies between  the  two  Republics  and  a  resumption  of  the  cordial 
and  friendly  relations  which  always  existed  between  them  before 
the  occurrences  on  the  Isthmus  above  enumerated. 

To  conclude,  the  refusal  of  so  great  and  powerful  a  nation  as  the 
United  States  to  consent  to  enter  into  negotiations,  of  one  nature  or 
another,  with  a  weak  nation  unable  to  obtain  reparation  by  arms 
would,  as  its  only  result,  convince  the  weaker  nation  that  the  United 
States  do  not  wish  to  give  her  the  justice  due  her  or  to  submit  their 
conduct  to  a  judicial  investigation  and  to  arbitration.  This  refusal 
would  certainly  have  only  the  most  unfortunate  influence  on  the  citi- 
zens of  the  weak  nation,  denied  justice  because  too  weak  to  have  any 
hope  of  sustaining  its  claim  by  force;  and,  inversely,  if  your  Govern- 
ment maintains  its  uninterrupted  tradition  of  doing  justice  to  others, 
regardless  of  their  lack  of  strength,  as  your  Chief  Magistrate  so 
emphatically  expressed  it  recently  in  the  following  terms:  "  TVe  must 
be  scrupulous  in  our  respect  for  the  rights  of  the  weak."  then  the 
consequences  will  undoubtedly  be  highly  salutary,  not  only  as  an 
efficacious  means  of  allaying  all  resentment  in  the  Colombian  mind, 
but  of  removing  all  apprehension  in  the  minds  of  the  weak  peoples 
who  inhabit  the  Western  Hemisphere. 

For  all  of  the  reasons  hereinbefore  set  forth,  the  undersigned 
earnestlv  entreats  you  to  consider  favorably  the  petition  he  makes 
to  you  for  a  direct  adjustment  or  for  the  constitution  of  a  court  of 
arbitration  to  decide  the  differences  between  the  two  countries,  and 
in  either  manner  you  will  add  one  more  to  the  illustrious  cases  in 
which  your  great  Nation  has  favored  the  cause  of  justice  and  of 
international  arbitration. 

The  undersigned  embraces  this  opportunity  to  express  to  the 
honorable  Mr.  Elihu  Root.  Secretary  of  State,  the  assurances  of  his 
highest  consideration. 

Diego  Mendoza. 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  583 

The  Secretary  of  State  to  the  Colombian  Minister. 

No.  10.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  February  10,  1906. 

Sir:  I  had  the  honor  to  receive,  bjr  personal  delivery,  the  note 
which  you  addressed  to  me  under  date  of  the  21st  of  October  last, 
proposing  that  the  United  States  shall  join  with  Colombia,  in  the 
event  of  diplomatic  adjustment  failing,  in  submitting  to  international 
arbitration  the  questions  presented  by  your  Government  growing 
out  of  the  separation  of  Panama  from  the  Republic  of  Colombia. 

The  nature  of  this  proposition,  which  has  been  made  and  answered 
before,  and  the  allegations  and  arguments  now  put  forward  in  its 
support,  have  demanded  renewed  careful  and  protracted  considera- 
tion on  the  part  of  the  President  and  his  constitutional  advisers,  in 
order  that  the  reply  should  conform  to  the  spirit  of  perfect  amity 
which  has  ever  controlled  and  should  control  the  relationship  of  the 
United  States  to  the  Republic  of  Colombia. 

Your  note  renews  the  proposal  of  arbitration  as  an  alternative 
resort  if  a  prompt  and  satisfactory  adjustment  by  direct  diplomacy 
be  not  attainable;  but  I  do  not  find  therein  any  clear  indication  of 
the  nature  of  the  contemplated  diplomatic  settlement.  You  present 
an  elaborate  recital  of  the  grievances  which  Colombia  believes  to 
have  been  inflicted  upon  her  b}T  the  alleged  conduct  and  acts  of  the 
United  States  in  regard  to  Isthmian  affairs,  and  you  sum  up  the 
twenty  enumerated  specifications  of  injuries  under  four  conclusions 
without  suggesting  the  diplomatic  remedy  which,  in  the  judgment 
of  your  Government,  would  be  appropriate.  You  merely  intimate 
that  if  the  Government  of  the  United  States  were  disposed  to  admit 
the  justice  of  your  complaints  a  path  would  be  happily  opened 
toward  a  prompt  and  satisfactory  settlement  by  diplomacy,  and  in 
the  same  breath  you  assume  that  their  justice  will  be  denied,  in  which 
event  you  declare  that  it  appears  to  be  clear  that  the  only  practicable 
means  of  adjustment,  honorable  for  both  countries,  would  be  to  sub- 
mit their  differences  to  the  decision  of  an  impartial  court  of  arbitra- 
tion. It  may  not  have  been  your  intention  to  exclude  legitimate 
discussion  touching  the  merits  of  the  alleged  complaints,  but  the 
language  and  tenor  of  your  note  seem  to  require  either  the  complete 
admission  of  their  justice  as  a  condition  to  seeking  a  diplomatic 
adjustment  or  the  appearance  of  the  United  States  as  a  defendant 
before  the  bar  of  an  arbitral  court  to  meet  the  grave  charges  formu- 
lated by  Colombia. 

It  gives  me  pleasure  to  assure  you  of  my  entire  agreement  with 
the  sentiments  which  you  express  so  eloquently  in  favor  of  the  set- 
tlement of  international  disputes  by  arbitration.  I  hope  the  time 
will  never  come — I  do  not  believe  that  it  will  ever  come — when  the 
United  States  is  not  in  accord  with  these  sentiments  and  does_not 
respond  to  them  in  its  action.  Beyond  the  very  able  expression  of 
these  views,  however,  I  find  in  your  note  no  statement  of  griev- 
ance or  of  reasons  why  there  should  now  be  an  arbitration  between 
Colombia  and  the  United  States  which  were  not  in  substance  and 
with  great  ability  presented  by  General  Reves  in  his  letters  of  De- 
cember 23,  1903/  January  6,  1901,1  and  January  11,  1904,1  and 
finally  and  conclusively  answered  by  Mr.  Hay  on  the  5th,1   9th,1 

1  Trinted  in  S.  Doc.  No.  95,  58th  Coni?..  2d  s?.<ss. 


584  DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

and  13th  1  days  of  January,  1904.  Upon  the  most  painstaking  re- 
view of  the  facts  and  of  the  positions  then  taken  by  my  predecessoi, 
I  find  no  just  ground  for  departing-  from  the  conclusions  which  he 
reached.  It  is  needless  to  repeat  the  views  then  expressed. 
_  There  is  one  consideration,  however,  which  Mr.  Hay  was  not  at 
liberty  to  present  at  that  time  because  the  treaty  between  the  United 
States  and  Panama  had  not  then  received  the  approval  of  the  Senate 
of  the  United  States  and  had  not  been  ratified,  although  it  had  been 
signed  by  the  plenipotentiaries  of  the  two  Governments.  That  treaty 
has  since  been  ratified  by  the  consent  of  the  Senate,  and  both  Houses 
of  Congress  have  concurred  in  appropriating  the  money  necessary 
to  give  the  treaty  effect ;  upon  its  ratification,  the  force  of  the  treaty 
related  back  to  the  18th  of  the  preceding  November,  when  it  was 
signed.  The  executive  and  legislative  branches  of  our  Government 
have  thus  united  to  create,  in  the  most  solemn  and  binding  form,  a 
guaranty  by  the  people  of  the  United  States  of  the  independence  of 
the  people  of  Panama. 

The  real  gravamen  of  your  complaint  is  this  espousal  of  the  cause 
of  Panama  by  the  people  of  the  United  States.  No  arbitration  could 
deal  with  the  real  rights  and  wrongs  of  the  parties  concerned  unless 
it  were  to  pass  upon  the  question  whether  the  cause  thus  espoused 
was  just — whether  the  people  of  Panama  were  exercising  their  just 
rights  in  declaring  and  maintaining  their  independence  of  Colom- 
bian rule.  We  assert  and  maintain  the  affirmative  upon  that  ques- 
tion. We  assert  that  the  ancient  State  of  Panama,  independent  in 
its  origin  and  by  nature  and  history  a  separate  political  community, 
was  confederated  with  the  other  States  of  Colombia  upon  terms 
which  preserved  and  continued  its  separate  sovereignty ;  that  it  never 
surrendered  that  sovereignty;  that  in  the  year  1885  the  compact 
which  bound  it  to  the  other  States  of  Colombia  was  broken  and  ter- 
minated by  Colombia,  and  the  Isthmus  was  subjugated  by  force; 
that  it  was  held  under  foreign  domination  to  which  it  had  never  con- 
sented ;  and  that  it  was  justly  entitled  to  assert  its  sovereignty  and 
demand  its  independence  from  a  rule  which  was  unlawful,  oppres- 
sive, and  tyrannical.  We  can  not  ask  the  people  of  Panama  to  con- 
sent that  this  right  of  theirs,  which  is  vital  to  their  political  exist- 
ence, shall  be  submitted  to  the  decision  of  any  arbitrator.  Nor  are 
we  willing  to  permit  any  arbitrator  to  determine  the  political  policy 
of  the  United  States  in  following  its  sense  of  right  and  justice  by 
espousing  the  cause  of  this  weak  people  against  the  stronger  Gov- 
ernment of  Colombia,  which  had  so  long  held  them  in  unlawful  sub- 
jection. 

There  is  one  other  subject  contained  in  your  note  which  I  can  not 
permit  to  pass  without  notice.  You  repeat  the  charge  that  the  Gov- 
ernment of  the  United  States  took  a  collusive  part  in  fomenting  or 
inciting  the  uprising  upon  the  Isthmus  of  Panama  which  ultimately 
resulted  in  the  revolution.  I  regret  that  you  should  see  fit  to  thus 
renew  an  aspersion  upon  the  honor  and  good  faith  of  the  United 
States  in  the  face  of  the  positive  and  final  denial  of  the  fact  contained 
in  Mr.  Hay's  letter  of  January  5.  1904.  You  must  be  well  aware 
that  the  universally  recognized  limitations  upon  the  subjects  proper 
for  arbitration  forbid  that  the  United  States  should  submit  such  a 
question  to  arbitration.     In  view  of  your  own  recognition  of  this 

i  Printed   in    S.    Doc.    No.    95,    58th   Cong.,    2d   sess. 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTOKY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  585 

established  limitation,  I  have  been  unable  to  discover  any  justifica- 
tion for  the  renewal  of  this  unfounded  assertion. 

Accept,  Mr.  Minister,  the  renewed  assurances  of  my  highest  con- 
sideration. 

Elihu  Root. 


The  Colombia?!  Minister  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

The  Rochambeau, 
Washington,  April  6, 1906. 

Sir  :  Both  your  favor  of  the  10th  of  last  February  and  the  note  of 
the  12th,  correcting  mistakes  as  to  dates  made  in  the  former  and 
signed  by  Mr.  Adee,  were  received  at  this  legation  in  due  time. 

The  nature  and  importance  of  the  matter  dealt  with  in  this  corre- 
spondence compel  me  once  again  to  draw  your  kind  attention,  and 
through  you  that  of  the  President  and  his  advisers,  to  the  pending 
difficulty  between  my  country  and  the  United  States.  I  do  so  the 
more  gladly  because  your  communication  contains  new  points  which 
seem  to  open  the  way  for  an  honorable  settlement  of  my  country's 
claim.  I  dare  to  hope,  therefore,  that  my  present  communication  will 
accomplish  this  happy  result,  following,  as  it  does,  the  line  of  your 
suggestion,  and  removing,  as  I  feel  confident,  certain  misconceptions 
which  apparently  still  exist,  notwithstanding  the  "  careful  and  pro- 
tracted consideration  "  which  you  inform  me  was  given  to  my  former 
one  by  the  President  and  his  constitutional  advisers  and  by  yourself. 

At  the  outset,  allow  me  to  say  I  am  sorry  to  learn  that  the  Presi- 
dent and  his  advisers  have  concluded  from  my  note  that  I  meant  to 
cast  aspersions  upon  the  honor  and  good  faith  of  the  United  States. 
An  honorable  settlement  of  a  controversy,  such  as  I  suggested,  can 
not  with  reason  be  proposed  to  one  considered  as  lacking  in  honor  and 
good  faith.  My  purpose  was  to  state — and  I  thought  I  had  made  it 
perfectly  plain — that  the  honor  and  good  faith  of  the  United  States 
could  not  possibly  be  impaired  by  accepting  either  of  the  propositions 
suggested  by  me. 

It  is  my  purpose  to  consider  in  this  communication  only  facts 
about  which  there  is  no  question  and  to  leave  out  of  thought  en- 
tirely all  matters  about  which  there  may  be  an  erroneous  opinion, 
either  in  the  United  States  or  in  Colombia.  There  can  in  this  case  be 
no  possible  ground  for  supposing  that  I  mean  to  cast  aspersions  upon 
the  honor  of  the  United  States. 

The  particular  claim  of  Colombia  has  been  stated  several  times 
in  the  various  communications  from  my  country,  but  not  so  definitely 
perhaps  as  might  be  desired.  The  very  nature  of  the  claim  itself 
prevents  this.  I  am  availing  myself,  however,  of  the  wise  suggestion 
contained  in  your  communication;  and  before  proceeding  to  a  con- 
sideration of  the  facts  on  which  the  claim  of  Colombia  is  based  and 
of  the  possible  methods  of  its  adjustment  in  a  way  honorable  to  both 
our  countries,  I  will  now  make  as  definite  and  distinct  a  statement  ot 
Colombia's  claim  as  the  nature  of  the  damage  inflicted  on  her  will 
permit. 

As  a  result  of  certain  acts  admitted  to  have  been  done  by  the  United 
States,  and  which  have  heretofore  been  made  a  part  of  the  public  rec- 


586  DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

ords  of  the  United  States,  one  of  Colombia's  members — the  Depart- 
ment of  Panama — has  been  cut  off  or  severed  from  her  body  and 
erected  into  what  the  United  States  calls,  and  has  recognized  as,  an 
independent  nation.  The  circumstances  under  which  this  was  done, 
in  view  of  the  treaty  of  1846  between  the  United  States  and  Colombia, 
and  in  view  of  certain  principles  of  international  law  to  which  the 
United  States  has  assented,  obligate  the  United  States  to  compensate 
Colombia  for  this  loss  in  so  far  as  money  can  compensate  for  such  a 
loss. 

To  facilitate  our  arriving  at  an  agreement  as  to  the  justice  of  this 
my  country's  claim,  I  wish  to  review  with  the  President  and  his  con- 
stitutional advisers  the  events  leading  up  thereto — events  which  are 
well  known,  but  which  must  be  carefully  and  connectedly  considered 
in  order  that  we  may  see  clearly  what  justice  demands. 

As  has  been  well  said  in  the  correspondence  issuing  from  the  De- 
partment of  State  of  the  United  States,  Providence  seems  to  have 
designed  the  Isthmus  of  Panama  as  a  highway  for  mankind  between 
the  two  great  oceans  which  lave  the  eastern  and  western  shores  of  our 
continent. 

During  the  great  upheaval  which  freed  the  American  continent 
from  the  political  errors  which  had  fastened  themselves  on  Europe, 
the  people  of  the  United  States  introduced  into  human  government 
the  true  political  principles.  Almost  immediately  thereafter  Colom- 
bia founded  her  nationality,  and  the  territory  of  Panama  became  a 
part  of  Colombia's  body.  It  was  but  natural  that  Colombia  and  the 
United  States  should  desire  to  carry  out  the  designs  of  Providence  as 
respects  Panama,  and  that  an  agreement  should  be  concluded  between 
them,  with  a  view  (1)  to  insure  the  use  of  the  Isthmus  of  Panama  as 
a  highway,  open  at  all  times  to  the  people  of  the  United  States,  and 
(2)  to  preserve  and  maintain  forever  the  possession  of  this  Isthmus 
by  Colombia. 

This  having  been  accomplished  by  the  treaty  of  1846.  various 
efforts  were  made  by  Colombia  to  improve  the  method  of  transit 
across  the  Isthmus,  such  as  granting  to  an  American  company  a 
franchise  for  the  construction  of  the  Panama  Railroad.  When  this 
communication  was  deemed  insufficient,  Colombia  negotiated  sev- 
eral contracts  for  the  construction  of  the  Panama  Canal,  and  later 
granted  extensions  of  time  to  the  concessionaires  of  the  work.  Among 
these  efforts  to  improve  the  transit  across  the  Isthmus  must  be  men- 
tioned the  negotiations  which  Colombia  entered  into  with  the  United 
States  in  1869  for  the  conclusion  of  a  treaty  under  which  the  United 
States  should  construct  there  a  ship  canal.  The  Senate  of  the  United 
States  failed  and  refused  to  ratify  this  treaty,  signed  by  the  Presi- 
dents of  Colombia  and  of  the  United  States  and  duly  ratified  by  the 
Colombian  Congress. 

The  hope  of  my  country,  and  indeed  of  the  whole  world,  was  thus 
disappointed  by  the  act  of  the  United  States  Senate;  but  this  hope 
was  by  no  means  destroyed.  It  was  inevitable  that  in  the  course  of 
time  the  Isthmus  of  Panama  should  be  devoted  ''to  the  use  for 
which  Providence  seemed  to  have  designed  it,"  and  in  the  pres- 
ence of  difficulties  encountered  by  the  French  company  in  com- 
pleting this  work,  negotiations  were  renewed  with  a  view  to  placing 
the  United  States  in  a  position  to  carry  out  the  great  enterprise. 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTOEY    OF    THE    PANAMA   CANAL.  587 

After  much  effort  the  treaty  of  the  22d  January,  1903,  known  as 
the  Herran-Hay  treaty,  was  agreed  upon  by  the  Presidents  of  the 
two  countries,  and  then  ratified  by  the  United  States  Senate;  but 
it  failed  to  obtain  the  approval  of  the  Colombian  Congress,  thus 
meeting  with  the  same  fate  which  befell  the  treaty  of  1869,  with  a 
reversal  of  the  situation,  however,  in  that  the  Colombian  Congress, 
instead  of  the  United  States  Senate,  caused  the  failure  at  this  time. 

It  is  necessary  that  I  should  allude  here  to  some  of  the  causes 
which  contributed  to  the  failure  or  defeat  of  the  treaty  of  January  22, 
1903. 

The  United  States,  by  an  act  commonly  called  the  "  Spooner  Act," 
greatly  increased  the  difficulties  inherent  in  the  negotiation  of  trea- 
ties by  governments  whose  constitutions  require  legislative  approval 
of  every  treaty  negotiated  by  the  executive  department.  This 
Spooner  Act  instructed  the  President  of  the  United  States  to  proceed 
with  the  construction  of  an  Isthmian  Canal  by  the  Nicaragua  route, 
unless  he  could  secure  from  Colombia  within  defined  time  the  right 
to  construct  the  canal  through  the  Isthmus  of  Panama  upon  terms 
satisfactory  to  the  United  States. 

Perhaps  it  is  not  proper  for  me  to  inquire  into  the  underlying  rea- 
sons of  this  act,  so  I  only  say  incidentally  that  after  its  passage  the 
United  States  received  from  the  Panama  Canal  Company,  at  the 
price  of  $40,000,000,  property  for  which  that  company  had  previ- 
ously demanded  $150,00(1,000*.  But  whatever  its  motives,  this  act 
necessitated  the  approval  of  the  Herran-Hay  treaty  by  the  Colom- 
bian Congress  without  the  least  amendment  and  within  a  specified 
time  or  this  new  attempt  to  provide  for  the  construction  of  the  canal 
by  the  United  States  would  be  abortive,  unless,  indeed,  the  Spooner 
Act  should  be  amended  or  repealed  by  the  United  State-. 

The  minister  of  the  United  States  resident  at  Bogota  was  not 
unmindful  of  this  effect  of  the  Spooner  Act.  for  he  notifies  the  Gov- 
ernment of  Colombia  that  the  Herran-Hay  treaty  had  to  be  approved 
by  the  Colombian  Congress  immediately  and  without  the  least  amend- 
ment. If  the  Spooner  Act  had  not  been  on  the  statute  books  of  the 
United  States,  the  minister  of  the  United  States  at  Bogota  would 
have  had  no  ground  on  which  to  stand  while  making  this  declaration, 
even  had  it  been  made  in  the  most  friendly  and  judicious  manner, 
because  the  constitution  of  Colombia,  as  well  as  that  of  the  United 
States,  contemplates  the  amendment,  by  the  legislative  branch  of  the 
Government,  of  any  treaty  previously  negotiated  by  the  executive 
department  before  it  can  become  operative,  in  case  an  amendment 
seems  desirable  in  the  judgment  of  the  legislature.  While  it  is  true 
that  the  Spooner  Act  did  not,  and  could  not.  abrogate  the  constitu- 
tion of  Colombia  in  any  particular,  still,  in  its  practical  operation, 
this  act  of  the  United  States  prevented  the  proper  exercise  of  the 
constitutional  right  and  duty  of  every  member  of  the  Colombian 
Congress  to  propose  any  amendment  which  might  seem  to  him  ad- 
visable, in  order  that  the  interests  and  welfare  of  Colombia  might  be 
perfectly  protected  in  the  treaty  granting  this  important  concession. 
This  arose  fr<  m  the  fact  that  the  date  fixed  by  the  Spooner  Act  for 
proceeding  to  construct  the  canal  by  the  way  of  Nicaragua  was  so 
near  at  hand  when  the  Herran-Hay  treaty  came  up  for  discussion  in 
the  Colombian  Congress  that  there  was  no  possiblity  of  bringing  the 


588  DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

United  States  Senate  and  the  Colombian  Congress  into  agreement 
upon  any  amendment  to  that  treaty  which  might  be  suggested  by 
the  Colombian  Congress,  even  if  the  Presidents  of  Colombia  and  of 
the  United  States  should  have  given  assent  to  the  same. 

It  is  manifest,  therefore,  that  the  Spooner  Act  greatly  increased 
the  difficulties  necessarily  involved  in  the  negotiation  of  a  treaty 
between  Governments  constituted  as  are  those  of  Colombia  and  the 
United  States  in  a  matter  of  such  magnitude,  large  even  for  so  great 
a  Nation  as  the  United  States. 

Here,  then,  was  the  situation  in  August,  1903.  After  half  a  cen- 
tury of  desire  by  Colombia  that  there  should  be  a  canal  through  the 
Isthmus  of  Panama,  constructed  by  the  United  States  under  a  con- 
cession from  Colombia,  the  United  States  was  still  without  authority 
to  accomplish  this  great  work. 

First,  because  the  constitution  of  Colombia  and  that  of  the  United 
States  alike  require  legislative  approval  of- treaties  negotiated  by  the 
executive  departments  of  the  Government.  But  for  this  difficulty 
the  efforts  of  our  two  countries  would  before  now  have  resulted  in 
the  construction  of  the  canal  through  Panama  by  the  United  States 
under  a  concession  from  Colombia. 

Second,  because  of  the  refusal  of  the  United  States  Senate  to  ratify 
the  treaty  of  1869. 

Third,  because  the  Colombian  Congress  did  not  ratify  the  Herran- 
Hay  treaty,  under  conditions  whose  difficulties  were  increased  by 
the  act  of  the  United  States  necessitating  ratification  of  this  treaty 
without  the  least  amendment  as  soon  as  it  came  before  the  Colombian 
Congress. 

The  adjournment  of  the  Colombian  Congress,  after  its  refusal  to 
ratify  the  Herran-Hay  treaty,  brought  the  Executive  of  the  United 
States  face  to  face  with  the  Spooner  Act,  and  seemed  to  necessitate 
the  construction  of  the  canal  through  Nicaragua,  which  was  con- 
sidered the  wrong  route,  or  else  the  securing  of  an  amendment  to 
this  act  in  order  that  the  United  States  might  continue  negotiations 
with  Colombia. 

Confronted  by  this  situation,  the  President  of  the  United  States 
was  formulating  in  a  message  to  Congress  the  thought  that  there  did 
or  should  exist  some  means  whereby  the  United  States  could  dedicate 
the  Isthmus  of  Panama  to  the  use  most  necessary  for  the  general 
welfare  of  the  people  of  all  nations — that  is,  for  an  interoceanic 
canal — a  sort  of  international  eminent  domain,  perhaps. 

Colombia  does  not  profess  this  doctrine,  and  does  not  see  how  it 
can  be  practiced  in  international  affairs  prior  to  the  establishment 
of  an  authority  superior  to  the  sovereign  nations  in  whose  name  it 
could  be  invoked.  The  mere  fact,  however,  that  the  President  of 
the  United  States  was  formulating  the  thought  of  finding  some  way 
to  dedicate  the  Isthmus  to  canal  purposes,  other  than  by  agreement 
upon  the  terms  and  price  of  concession  with  the  sovereign  having 
title  to  the  same,  seems  to  call  for  a  pause  in  this  recital  of  events  long 
enough  to  remark  that  what  subsequently  happened  was  very  like  a 
concrete  application  of  this  doctrine  to  Colombia,  but  without  com- 
pensation for  the  territory  taken — a  so-called  "  new  nation,"  which 
was  preserved  from  the  day  of  its  birth,  and  guaranteed  permanently 
m  its  life  by  the  powerful  arm  of  the  United  States,  serving  as  the 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTOKY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  589 

means,  in  the  absence  of  an  international  body  having  proper 
authority. 

While  the  President  of  the  United  States  was  at  work  upon  this 
thought  of  some  means  of  "  dedicating  the  Isthmus  of  Panama  to  the 
use  for  which  Providence  seems  to  have  designed  it,"  other  than  by 
treaty  with  Colombia,  the  independence  of  Panama  was  declared. 
The  executive  department  of  the  United  States  Government  immedi- 
ately issued  orders  to  the  United  States  Navy  to  prevent  the  landing 
of  any  Colombian  troops  in  Panama — Colombia's  own  territory — 
with  a  view  to  the  reduction  of  Panama  to  submission.  The  United 
States  Navy  obeyed  the  instructions  thus  given  by  the  executive 
department  of  the  United  States  Government.  The  only  possible 
way  for  a  Colombian  army  to  reach  Panama  was  by  water,  owing  to 
the  topography  of  Panama.  All  the  wTaterway  between  Colombia 
and  Panama  was  occupied  by  warships  of  the  United  States  Navy. 
It  was  impossible,  therefore,  for  Colombia  to  reach  Panama  with  an 
armed  force,  because  of  the  presence  and  action  of  the  war  vessels  of 
the  United  States.  Consequently  the  effect  of  this  lifting  up  of  the 
powerful  hand  of  the  United  States  was  to  prevent  Colombia  from 
maintaining  her  sovereignty  over  Panama,  and  thus  Panama  was 
severed  from  the  body  of  Colombia. 

The  action  which  brought  about  this  result  was  taken  by  the  execu- 
tive department  of  the  United  States  Government,  on  the  supposi- 
tion that  it  was  not  in  violation  of  any  principles  of  international  law 
by  which  the  United  States  had  bound  itself  to  act,  and  was  not  con- 
trary to  the  provisions  of  the  treaty  of  1846,  then  in  force  between 
Colombia  and  the  United  States.  On  the  contrary,  it  was  asserted 
by  the  United  States  that  this  action  was  lawful  and  necessary  for 
the  faithful  performance  of  the  duties  imposed  upon  the  United 
States  by  the  treaty  of  1846,  and,  indeed,  was  demanded  in  order  to 
promote  the  general  welf  are  not  only  of  the  people  of  both  North  and 
South  America,  but  of  all  civilized  nations. 

Colombia  does  not  for  a  moment  lose  sight  of  the  fact  that,  during 
a  long  period,  the  United  States  has  shared  with  her  in  the  desire 
to  see  a  canal  constructed  through  Panama  for  the  promotion  of  the 
general  welfare  of  all  nations,  nor  does  she  overlook  the  fact  that 
there  were  special  reasons  why  it  would  be  of  particular  value  to  the 
United  States  to  have  this  canal  constructed  and  operated  by  the 
United  States.  Disregarding  the  particular  interests  of  the  United 
States  for  constructing  and  operating  the  canal,  and  looking  solely 
to  the  promotion  of  the  general  welfare  of  all  nations  by  the  timely 
construction  of  the  canal,  at  the  proper  place  and  in  the  proper  way. 
it  is  apparent  that  the  rights  of  Colombia — the  sovereign  of  Pan- 
ama— should  be  carefully  respected  in  securing  the  concession  for 
the  canal;  for  only  in  this  way  could  the  canal  be  constructed  so  as 
to  promote  the  general  interest  of  all  nations  without  doing  an  injury 
to  any  nation.  Without  in  any  way  reflecting  upon  the  motives  of 
the  United  States  in  the  course  which  was  pursued  when  the  inde- 
pendence of  Panama  was  declared,  it  is  proper  to  inquire  whether 
the  Executive  Department  of  the  United  States  Government  was 
correct  in  its  belief  that  it  had  a  right  to  take  the  action  which  it  is 
admitted  was  taken,  after  the  declaration  of  the  independence  of 
Panama,  and  which  prevented  Colombia  from  maintaining  her  sov- 


590  DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY    OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

ereignty  over  the  Isthmus;  also  whether  the  acts  performed  by  the 
United  States  were  contrary  to  the  obligations  which  the  United 
States  was  under  by  reason  of  the  provisions  in  the  treaty  of  1846, 
or  by  reason  of  certain  principles  of  international  law  which  the 
United  States  has  declared  as  binding  upon  nations  and  to  the  obser- 
vation of  which  it  has  held  other  nations. 

\\  hen  the  independence  of  Panama  was  declared,  the  treaty  of 
1846  between  Colombia  and  the  United  States  was  in  full  force,  and 
our  two  countries  are  and  ever  have  been  in  perfect  accord  upon  this 
point,  namely :  That  this  treaty  bound  the  United  States  to  pre- 
serve Colombia's  sovereignty  over  Panama  against  menace  or  de- 
struction from  foreign  nations. 

Upon  the  declaration  of  independence  of  Panama,  a  grave  question 
arose,  namely:  Did  the  treaty  of  1846  bind  the  United  States  to 
preserve  Colombia's  sovereignty  over  Panama  against  menace  from 
every  danger  whatsoever,  regardless  of  its  origin,  even  from  internal 
violence,  rebellion,  or  revolution,  or  at  least  to  take  no  action  that 
would  hinder  Colombia  in  such  case?  Colombia,  in  the  face  of  the 
Panama  crisis,  called  upon  the  United  States,  as  an  obligation  im- 
posed by  the  treaty  of  1846,  to  take  no  steps  that  would  embar- 
ras  her  suppressing  the  rebellion  and  maintaining  her  sovereignty 
over  the  Isthmus.  The  United  States,  on  the  other  hand,  without 
an  exchange  of  one  word  with  Colombia  on  this  subject,  announced 
an  interpretation  of  the  treaty  of  1846  not  theretofore  formulated — 
that  is,  that  Colombia,  in  whose  behalf  the  protection  clause  in  this 
treaty  was  inserted,  had  granted  to  the  United  States  the  right  to 
take  steps  which  would  prevent  Colombia  from  suppressing  within 
her  own  territory  a  rebellion  which,  if  successful,  would  destroy  her 
sovereignty  over  the  Isthmus  of  Panama. 

Colombia  declares  that  the  United  States  has,  in  this  respect, 
misinterpreted  the  treaty  of  1846. 

It  is  an  admitted  fact  that,  under  this  construction  of  the  treaty 
of  1846,  the  United  States  has  so  acted  as  to  cause  the  loss  of  Panama 
to  Colombia.  Thus,  by  the  admitted  acts  of  the  United  States, 
Colombia  has  been  deprived  of  that  very  member  of  her  body  which 
the  United  States  had  agreed  to  preserve  to  her  forever. 

If  the  acts  of  the  United  States  were  lawful  and  right,  this  loss 
must  fall  upon  Colombia.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  this  loss  was 
wrongfully  occasioned  by  acts  of  the  United  States  done  in  violation 
of  the  provisions  of  the  treaty  by  which  the  United  States  has  obli- 
gated itself,  or  in  violation  of  principles  of  international  law  to 
which  the  United  States  has  assented,  then  the  United  States  is 
lawfully  bound  to  compensate  Colombia  for  the  damage  thus  done 
to  her. 

The  United  States  formulated  the  construction  of  the  treaty  of 
1846,  by  which  this  loss  was  occasioned  to  Colombia  in  the  face  of  a 
great  emergency,  when  it  appeared  to  the  United  States  that  any 
other  course  would  cause  the  permanent  loss  of  all  hope  of  locating 
the  Isthmian  ('anal  at  the  proper  place,  and  would  "frustrate  for- 
ever" the  policy  in  regard  to  the  Isthmus  of  Panama  to  which  both 
of  our  countries  had  long  adhered,  and  which  was  for  the  welfare  of 
the  people  of  all  nations.  Without  emphasizing  the  fact,  I  desire  to 
state  in  passing  that  the  Government  of  the  United  States  took  too 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  591 

gloomy  a  view  of  the  situation.  There  is  higher  authority  than 
Abraham  Lincoln,  one  of  the  great  Presidents  of  the  United  States, 
for  believing  that  "  nothing  is  settled  till  it  is  settled  right."  and 
therefore  both  Colombia  and  the  United  States  could  have  rested  in 
the  conviction  that  a  firm  adherence  to  the  principles  involved  in 
due  time  would  have  brought  our  Governments  into  agreement  upon 
the  terms  of  a  treaty  for  the  construction  of  a  canal  through  Panama, 
despite- any  appearance  to  the  contrary.  The  very  secession  of  Pan- 
ama altered  the  conditions  in  Colombia  to  such  an  extent  that  the 
United  States  would  have  received  the  canal  concession  from  Colom- 
bia if  the  United  States  had  only  remained  inactive  while  Colombia 
was  reducing  Panama  to  submission.  But  leaving  this  entirely  out 
of  view,  as  not  being  a  matter  of  accomplished  fact,  the  condition 
to-day  is  this:  The  canal  concession  has  been  secured  by  the  United 
States,  and  that  member  of  my  country's  body  which  the  United 
States  had  agreed  to  preserve  to  Colombia  forever  has  been  lost,  and 
this  by  the  act  of  the  United  States,  done  under  a  construction  of 
the  treaty  of  1846  not  heretofore  announced,  and  formulated  by  the 
United  States  in  the  face  of  this  emergency.  In  the  clear  light  of 
the  present  day,  and  freed  from  fear  of  losing  the  canal  concession, 
the  United  States  can  be  expected  to  see  that  the  people  and  the 
Government  of  Colombia  never  agreed  by  the  treaty  of  1846  that  the 
United  States,  while  complying  with  its  terms,  might  lawfully  cause 
the  loss  to  Colombia  of  the  very  thing  for  which  Colombia  entered 
into  that  treaty. 

The  treaty  could  not  possibly  give  the  United  States  any  such  right 
unless  the  mind  of  Colombia  and  of  the  United  States  came  into 
agreement  upon  that  point.  Is  it  possible  to  believe  that  any  national 
entity  would  ever  enter  into  an  agreement  with  another  for  the 
preservation  of  a  member  of  its  own  body  and  by  the  very  terms  of 
the  agreement  authorize  the  severance  of  that  member  by  the  act  of 
the  party  that  was  binding  itself  to  preserve  said  member? 

Certainly  the  United  States,  on  reconsideration  of  this  matter  in 
the  light  of  these  facts,  can  see  that  Colombia  never  agreed  by  the 
treaty  of  1846  that  the  United  States  might  lawfully  commit  such 
acts,  under  the  provisions  of  that  treaty,  as  to  cause  the  loss  to 
Colombia  of  her  sovereignty  over  the  Isthmus  of  Panama.  When  the 
United  States  does  see  this,  it  will  recognize  its  duty  to  compensate 
Colombia  for  the  loss  occasioned  by  its  admitted  acts  done  under  a 
misconception  of  the  rights  supposed — in  an  emergency — to  have 
arisen  from  the  treaty  of  1846. 

The  damage  done  to  Colombia  by  admitted  and  published  acts  of 
the  United  States  is  the  value  of  the  Department  of  Panama.  The 
amount  of  damage  thus  caused  to  Colombia,  and  for  which  the 
United  States  is  lawfully  responsible,  has  not  been  stated  in  exact 
figures,  for  the  reason  that  the  exact  amount  can  not  easily  be  stated. 
The  lost  member  was  very  valuable,  being  the  strategic  point  of 
the  whole  Western  Hemisphere.  Liability  for  this  loss  being  con- 
ceded by  the  United  States,  the  estimation  of  the  amount  of  damage 
could  be  either  by  direct  negotiation  or  by  a  committee  of  experts 
appointed  by  our  two  Governments. 

If  the  United  States  desires,  I  can  submit  an  amount  as  approxi- 
mating the  value  of  the  lost  member  of  Colombia,  upon  the  payment 


592  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

of  which  my  country  would  feel  compensated,  in  so  far  as  money 
can  compensate  for  such  a  loss.  Or  we  can  now  proceed  to  the 
appointment  of  a  joint  commission,  charged  with  the  duty  of  deter- 
mining, in  justice  and  in  equity,  the  amount  of  compensation  to  which 
Colombia  is  entitled  from  the  United  States  by  virtue  of  this  loss; 
that  is  to  say,  the  value  of  Panama,  including  not  only  the  value  of 
territory  but  that  of  the  railroad,  of  the  contract  with  the  French 
company,  and  so  forth. 

Though  the  acts  of  the  United  States  which  severed  Panama  from 
the  body  of  Colombia  were  done  by  the  executive  department  of  the 
United  States  Government,  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  as  you 
inform  me,  subsequently  ratified  a  treaty  which  the  President  and  the 
Department  of  State  had  negotiated  with  Panama,  whereby  the  inde- 
pendence of  Panama  was  guaranteed  by  the  United  States,  and 
whereby  the  United  States  received  from  Panama  a  concession  to 
construct  a  canal  through  Panama;  and,  still  later,  the  House  of 
Representatives  of  the  United  States  joined  with  the  Senate  of  the 
United  States  in  making  an  appropriation  of  money  to  be  expended 
in  Panama  under  a  canal  concession  granted  to  the  United  States  by 
Panama  as  an  independent  nation.  By  the  act  of  the  Senate  the 
severance  of  Panama  from  Colombia  is  made  permanent,  to  the  extent 
that  the  United  States  can  by  its  act  accomplish  this,  and  the  state 
of  things  thus  created  has  been  accepted  by  joint  action  of  the  Senate 
and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States.  The  Panama 
incident  may  seem,  therefore,  to  be  closed,  but  this  is  not  true,  at 
least  so  far  as  Colombia  is  concerned,  and  can  not  be  closed  until 
Colombia  is  compensated  or  has  an  opportunity  to  plead  her  cause 
before  an  impartial  court  of  arbitration. 

Having  acted  in  an  emergency,  when  it  appeared  to  the  United 
States  that  a  work  most  necessary  for  the  general  welfare  of  the  whole 
world  was  in  jeopardy,  and  in  such  a  way  as  to  insure  the  execution  of 
this  work  without  delay  and  at  a  place  and  upon  terms  entirely  satis- 
factory to  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  it  is  but  natural  that 
the  executive  department  of  the  United  States  Government  and  all 
the  Members  of  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  who  were  called 
upon  to  take  part  in  this  action  should  consider  carefully,  in  the  light 
of  all  the  facts  which  bear  upon  the  history  of  the  relations  of  our  two 
Governments  in  regard  to  Panama,  whether  in  this  emergency  any 
damage  Avas  done  which  the  United  States  ought  to  repair,  according 
to  the  highest  sense  of  justice  and  right. 

As  the  question  of  impairing  the  honor  of  the  United  States  has 
been  brought  into  discussion,  I  may  be  permitted  to  remark  that  the 
honor  of  every  act  is  coeval  with  the  act  itself.  It  is,  therefore,  im- 
possible for  the  honor  of  an  individual  or  of  a  nation  to  be  tarnished 
by  an  agreement  to  do  what  is  eventually  recognized  to  be  right,  inde- 
pendently of  the  question  as  to  whether  an  act  previously  done  was 
either  right  or  wrong.  Indeed,  the  enlightened  opinion  of  the  whole 
world  is  agreed  upon  this,  that  even  when  a  wrong  action  has  been 
taken,  consciously  or  unconsciously,  that  which  will  most  redound  to 
the  honor  of  any  party  thereto  is  to  correct  the  same.  Therefore, 
whether  the  acts  of  the  United  States  done  in  the  Panama  emergency 
were  right  or  wrong,  whether  they  were  in  accordance  with  the  pro- 
visions of  the  treaty  of  1846  and  of  recognized  principles  of  inter- 
national law  or  contrarv  thereto,  the  honor  of  the  United  States 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTOEY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  593 

would  be  enhanced  by  consenting  to  arbitrate  the  claim  of  Colombia, 
in  the  event  that  the  United  States  can  not  see,  in  the  light  of  the 
facts  set  forth  in  this  communication,  that  it  is  in  duty  bound  to  com- 
pensate Colombia. 

In  this  connection,  I  feel  sure  that  the  United  States  will  not 
forget  that  the  Government  of  Great  Britain  refused  at  first  to  arbi- 
trate the  claim  of  the  United  States  for  damages  done  by  the  Ala- 
bama, asserting  that  to  arbitrate  that  claim  would  impair  the  honor 
of  the  British  Government.  Throughout  the  whole  world,  and 
particularly  in  the  United  States,  it  is  now  recognized  that  the  arbi- 
tration of  the  Alabama  claims  by  Great  Britain  and  the  United 
States  set  the  tide  of  the  past  century  in  favor  of  the  arbitration  of 
disputes  between  nations  and  that  the  reconsideration  of  this  de- 
cision by  the  Government  of  Great  Britain  and  the  reference  of  the 
Alabama  claims  to  arbitration  is  one  of  the  greatest  honors  achieved 
by  the  British  Government,  although  the  decision  of  the  arbitrators 
was  against  Great  Britain.  A  similar  honor  can  now  be  achieved  by 
the  consent  of  the  United  States  to  arbitrate  the  claim  of  my  Govern- 
ment during  that  administration  of  the  United  States  under  which 
this  claim  arose. 

And.  in  order  to  facilitate  so  happy  a  decision  by  the  Government 
of  the  United  States,  in  case  it  can  not  yet  see  that  it  is  lawfully 
bound  to  compensate  Colombia.  I  propose  on  behalf  of  Colombia 
that  the  United  States  and  Colombia  forthwith  enter  into  a  con- 
vention for  the  purpose  of  securing  an  impartial  judgment  upon  the 
following  strictly  legal  questions: 

1.  Did  the  treaty  of  1846  obligate  the  United  States  to  maintain 
the  sovereignty  of  Colombia  over  the  Isthmus  of  Panama  against 
menace  or  attack  from  any  foreign  power  and  against  internal  dis- 
turbances that  might  jeopardize  said  sovereignty? 

2.  Did  the  treaty  of  1846  obligate  the  United  States  to  refrain 
from  taking  steps  which  would  hinder  Colombia  in  maintaining  her 
sovereignty  over  Panama  by  suppressing  rebellion,  revolution,  seces- 
sion, or  internal  disorder? 

3.  Did  the  treaty  of  1846  grant  to  the  United  States  the  right  to 
take  those  steps  which  it  is  admitted  were  taken  by  the  United  States 
to  prevent  the  landing  of  troops  in  Panama  and  the  suppression  of 
the  rebellion? 

4.  Did  the  treaty  of  1846  leave  the  United  States  free  lawfully  to 
take  the  steps  which  it  is  admitted  by  the  United  States  were  taken 
as  regards  Panama? 

5.  Did  these  acts  of  the  United  States,  which  it  is  admitted  were 
taken,  prevent  Colombia  from  taking  the  steps  necessary  to  suppress 
the  rebellion  and  maintain  her  sovereignty  over  the  Isthmus? 

6.  Were  the  admitted  acts  of  the  United  States  in  respect  to  Pan- 
ama in  violation  of  principles  of  international  law  which  have  been 
recognized  by  the  United  States  as  binding  upon  nations  in  their 
dealings  with  each  other? 

7.  What  damage,  if  any,  has  been  occasioned  in  Colombia  by  acts 
of  the  United  States  which  are  admitted  by  the  United  States,  and 
which  may  be  adjudged  as  having  been  in  violation  of  obligations 
imposed  upon  the  United  States  by  the  treaty  of  1846  or  by  prin- 
ciples of  international  law  to  which  the  United  States  has  assented? 

42112— S.  Doc.  474.  63-2 38 


594  DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

The  foregoing  questions  are  all  of  a  purely  legal  character,  arising 
upon  the  proper  interpretation  of  a  treaty  and  the  proper  applica- 
tion to  undisputed  facts  of  well-recognized  principles  of  interna- 
tional law.  They  are  therefore  identical  in  kind  with  the  questions 
included  in  the  treaties  recently  negotiated  by  the  United  States  with 
nine  governments  and  almost  unanimously  ratified  by  the  Senate  of 
the  United  States  as  to  said  questions  which  are  recognized  the  world 
over  as  eminently  suitable  for  judicial  determination.  Nevertheless, 
to  provide  against  all  possible  misconception  of  the  scope  of  the  arbi- 
tration proposed,  Colombia  will  gladly  add  to  the  convention,  if  the 
United  States  so  desires,  a  clause  providing  that  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  arbitrators  shall  not  be  construed  as  extending  to  the  point  of 
passing  upon  the  political  policy  of  the  United  States,  further  than 
to  determine  whether  the  policy  pursued  by  the  United  States  as 
respects  Panama  was  outside  of  the  limits  within  which  the  United 
States  had  bound  itself  to  remain,  either  by  the  treaty  of  1846  or  by 
principles  of  international  law  to  which  the  United  States  has 
assented.    - 

I  am  led  to  suggest  this  because  it  appears  from  your  communica- 
tion that  my  proposition  was  supposed  to  imply  the  reference  of  the 
political  policy  of  the  United  States  to  the  judgment  of  arbitrators, 
for  you  say :  "  Nor  are  we  willing  to  permit  any  arbitrator  to  deter- 
mine the  political  policy  of  the  United  States  in  following  its  sense 
of  right  and  justice  by  espousing  the  cause  of  this  weak  people 
(Panama)  against  the  stronger  Government  of  Colombia,  which  has 
so  long  held  them  in  unlawful  subjection." 

The  erroneous  supposition  that  I  propose  permitting  an  arbitrator 
to  determine  the  political  policy  of  the  United  States  has  been  re- 
moved by  my  suggestion  that  the  arbitral  convention  expressly  for- 
bids this  by  limiting  the  jurisdiction  of  the  arbitrators  to  deciding 
whether  the  acts  of  the  United  States  in  1903  were  contrary  to 
provisions  of  the  treaty  concluded  in  1846  or  contrary  to  the  prin- 
ciples of  international  law  for  violation  of  which  the  United  States 
has  held  other  nations  accountable. 

I  need  make  no  further  allusion,  therefore,  to  the  question  of  the 
public  policy  of  the  United  States:  but  I  am  compelledto  reply  to  the 
charge  contained  in  this  paragraph  of  your  communication,  and  to 
another  clause  where  you  say:  "That  the  ancient  State  of  Panama, 
independent  in  its  origin,  and  by  nature  and  history  a  separate  polit- 
ical community,  was  confederated  with  the  other  States  of  Colombia 
upon  terms  which  preserved  and  continued  its  separate  sovereignty; 
that  in  the  year  1885  the  compact  which  bound  it  to  the  other  States 
of  Colombia  was  broken  and  terminated  by  Colombia  and  the  Isth- 
mus was  subjugated  by  force;  that  it  was  held  under  foreign  domina- 
tion to  which  it  had  never  consented,  and  that  it  was  justly  entitled 
to  assert  its  sovereignty  and  demand  its  independence  from  a  rule 
which  was  unlawful,  oppressive,  and  tyrannical." 

I  must  say  in  reply  that  the  question  between  Colombia  and  the 
United  States  is  not  whether  Panama  was  justly  entitled  to  assert 
independence,  but  whether  the  United  States  was  under  obligation, 
by  treaty  or  by  principles  of  international  law,  not  to  do  the  things 
which  it  is  admitted  were  done  by  the  United  States  after  the  decla- 
ration of  Panama's  independence  was  made. 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTOEY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL.  595 

Permit  me  to  say  further  that  these  allegations  come  as  a  surprise 
to  my  country,  in  view  of  certain  public  records  of  the  United  States, 
which  I  must  now  recall  to  your  attention  on  account  of  these  allega- 
tions. 

In  regard  to  the  alleged  "  separate  sovereignty  "  of  Panama,  it 
seems  to  me  that  you  can  hardly  mean  what  the  language  would  seem 
to  imply,  remembering  that  in  1846  the  United  States  bound  itself  to 
preserve  the  sovereignty  of  Colombia  over  the  Isthmus  of  Panama 
forever,  and  in  view  of  the  further  facts  that  in  1869,  and  again  in 
1903,  the  United  States  negotiated  with  Colombia,  as  sovereign  of 
Panama,  for  valuable  concessions,  in  order  to  construct  an  isthmian 
canal  through  Panama. 

These  acts  could  not  have  occurred  if  Panama  had  been  a  separate 
sovereignty,  or  had  been  so  regarded  by  the  United  States. 

As  for  the  allegation  of  oppressive  or  tyrannical  conduct  toward 
Panama  by  the  Government  of  Colombia,  permit  me  to  call  to  your 
attention  the  fact  that  not  once  since  the  United  States  bound  itself 
to  maintain  forever  the  sovereignty  of  Colombia  over  Panama  has  the 
United  States  intimated  to  Colombia  that  her  rule  in  Panama  was 
oppressive,  tyrannical,  or  unlawful;  nor  has  the  United  States  or  any 
other  government  ever  made  representations  to  Colombia  on  account 
of  injuries  to  its  interests,  or  the  interests  of  its  citizens  in  Panama, 
caused  by  unlawful,  oppressive,  or  tyrannical  conduct  toward  Pan- 
ama by  the  Government  of  Colombia. 

Were  it  proper  for  us  to  disclose  the  political  relation  between 
Colombia  and  Panama  prior  to  the  2d  of  November,  1903,  or  the 
internal  affairs  of  Colombia,  I  could  set  forth  many  facts,  capable  of 
easy  proof,  which  would  show  that  the  allegations  into  which  you 
have  been  led  are  contrary  to  the  facts  of  the  history  of  my  country. 

In  addition  to  the  foregoing  allusion  to  facts  of  record  in  the 
United  States  I  may  say  that,  owing  to  the  nature  of  republican 
institutions,  under  which  Colombia  has  lived  ever  since  she  achieved 
her  independence,  through  her  own  efforts,  Colombia  has  "been  gov- 
erned by  the  vote  of  the  people.  There  has  been  no  disparity  in  the 
rights  enjoyed  by  any  of  the  several  members  of  Colombia's  body. 
All  the  States  or  departments  constituting  the  nation  have  always 
had  equal  rights.  It  is  true  that  political  struggles  have  occurred  in 
Colombia  which  resulted  in  civil  strife,  even  as  in  all  other  nations 
with  whose  history  Colombia  is  acquainted;  but  never  has  Panama 
or  any  other  State  or  Department  of  Colombia  endeavored  to  sever 
its  relations  with  the  rest  of  Colombia,  or  even  protested  against  any 
act  of  the  Government  as  being  against  its  welfare  and  designed  for 
the  special  interest  of  other  parts  of  the  national  body.  Such  civil 
wars  as  have  occurred  in  Colombia  came  from  struggles  between 
parties  having  representatives  in  all  parts  of  the  nation.  The  sacri- 
fices imposed  upon  the  nation  by  these  struggles  and  the  efforts  made 
to  work  our  way  through  them  have  been  undergone  and  shared 
alike  by  all  parts  of  the  nation. 

The  citizens  of  Colombia  in  Panama  took  part  in  the  struggles  on 
both  sides,  and  in  the  outcome  Panama  shared  equally  in  the  bene- 
fits with  all  the  other  parts  of  the  nation,  but.  in  several  particulars 
of  an  economical,  political,  and  vital  character,  was  burdened  less 
with    the   evil    consequences   than    were   the    others.      For   instance. 


596  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY   OF    THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

Colombia  generally  had  to  suffer  the  evils  of  a  paper  currency, 
whereas  the  people  of  Panama,  throughout  the  whole  crisis  and 
afterwards,  continued  by  the  act  of  Colombia  to  enjoy  the  benefit 
of  specie  currency,  though  paper  currency  was  made,  by  the  act  of 
the  Colombian  Congress,  the  only  lawful  currency  in  all  other  parts 
of  the  Republic. 

Taking  the  most  unfavorable  view  possible  of  the  refusal  of  the 
Colombian  Congress  to  sanction  the  Herran-Hay  treaty,  it  was  only 
a  repetition  of  the  act  done  in  1869  by  the  United  States  Senate. 
During  almost  every  session  of  every  double-chambered  national 
legislature  measures  most  necessary  to  the  national  welfare  fail  for 
want  of  agreement  by  the  two  bodies  whose  assent  must  be  secured, 
and  consequently  go  over  until  unity  of  action  can  be  obtained. 
The  thing  which  so  imperiled  the  vital  interests  of  the  people  of 
Panama  was  not  the  refusal  of  the  Colombian  Congress  to  ratify  the 
Herran-Hay  treaty  without  amendment,  but  the  existence  of  the 
Spooner  Act  of  the  United  States,  which  operated  to  prevent  free 
and  full  discussion  of  and  final  agreement  upon  a  treaty  for  the  con- 
struction of  the  canal,  after  the  exercise  of  their  constitutional  rights 
by  all  parties  charged  by  lawT  with  a  responsibility  in  regard  thereto. 
But  for  this  act  the  people  of  Panama  could  have  counted  upon  the 
conclusion  of  a  treaty  during  subsequent  sessions  of  the  Congresses 
of  the  two  countries.  Otherwise,  republican  government  must  be 
admitted  to  be  a  failure.  Moreover,  what  was  there  to  prevent  the 
United  States  from  amending  or  repealing  this  act  if  actual  condi- 
tions called  for  this,  in  the  interest  of  the  United  States,  of  Pnnama. 
of  Colombia,  and  of  other  nations? 

I  can  not  escape,  however,  from  the  feeling  that  consideration  of 
the  internal  government  of  Colombia  and  of  the  relation  of  Panama 
to  Colombia  prior  to  the  2d  of  November,  1903,  can  only  serve  to 
confuse  the  issue,  for  the  arbitrators  in  the  case  which  Colombia 
proposes  to  submit  could  not  inquire  into  the  internal  government 
or  the  foreign  policy  of  either  Colombia  or  the  United  States,  but 
only  into  the  questions  submitted,  questions  which  are  purely  of 
law,  upon  acts  all  of  which  are  admitted.  The  accuracy  or  the  in- 
accuracy of  the  statements  made  by  us,  in  this  discussion  of  the 
history  of  Colombia,  could  not  be  passed  upon  in  the  arbitration 
which  I  propose  and  does  not  have  to  be  decided  by  us  in  making 
a  direct  settlement,  for  the  sole  question  is:  Did  the  United  States 
act  contrary  to  the  treaty  of  1816  or  to  principles  of  international 
law  assented  to  by  the  United  States? 

I  beg  of  you,  therefore,  to  assure  the  President  and  his  constitu- 
tional advisers  that  I  have  not  intended  to  propose  that  the  United 
States  submit  its  public  policy  to  the  decision  of  any  arbitrator,  and 
that  von  will  put  out  of  mind,  all  matters  which  do  not  affect  the 
claim  which  is  made  by  my  country  or  the  method  proposed  for  its 
honorable  settlement,  either  by  compensation  of  Colombia  or  the 
arbitration  of  her  claim. 

Having  endeavored  to  confine  myself  in  this  communication  to 
facts  about  which  there  is  no  dispute  and  which  must  be  considered 
first  by  ourselves  in  arriving  at  a  direct  settlement  of  Colombia's 
claim,  and  then  by  any  court  of  arbitration  to  which  this  claim  may 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA   CANAL.  597 

be  referred,  if  a  direct  settlement  is  not  made,  I  trust  that  you  will 
assist  me  to  clear  away  all  other  questions  and  to  bring  to  the  atten- 
tion of  the  President  and  his  constitutional  advisers  only  such  ques- 
tions as  will  promote  an  honorable  settlement  of  this  unhappy  con- 
tention at  the  earliest  possible  moment. 

In  former  communications  received  from  the  Department  of  State 
of  the  United  States,  it  was  stated  that  the  actions  of  the  United 
States  sprang  from  motives  of  the  friendliest  kind  toward  Colombia, 
and  were  taken  in  order  faithfully  to  perform  the  duties  imposed 
upon  the  United  States  by  the  treaty  of  1846. 

I  note  the  fact  that  in  your  communication  it  is  stated  for  the  first 
time,  on  behalf  of  your  Government,  that  the  United  States  espoused 
the  cause  of  Panama,  the  language  being: 

Now.  are  we  willing  to  permit  any  arbitrator  to  determine  the  political  policy 
of  the  United  States  in  following  its  sense  of  right  and  justice  by  espousing  the 
cause  of  this  weak  people  against  the  stronger  government  of  Colombia,  which 
had  so  long  held  them  in  unlawful  subjection? 

As  my  country  must  suffer  a  continuous  injury  until  the  United 
States  determines  either  to  compensate  Colombia  or  to  arbitrate  this 
claim,  and  as  a  considerable  time  has  already  elapsed  since  the  events 
complained  of,  I  take  the  liberty  of  expressing  the  hope  that  the 
President  and  his  constitutional  advisers  will  give  the  earliest  possi- 
ble reconsideration  to  my  country's  claim,  in  the  light  of  the  facts 
and  arguments  thereon  set  forth  in  this  communication,  and  will 
submit  the  same  to  the  Senate  and  to  the  House  of  Representatives  of 
the  United  States  in  order  that  the  Members  of  these  two  honorable 
bodies  may  determine  the  course  which  it  is  proper  for  them  to  take 
under  existing  conditions. 

After  the  most  painstaking  review  of  the  situation  I  find  myself 
convinced  that  considerations  not  only  of  absolute  but  of  practical 
justice,  as  well  as  of  honor  and  of  the  general  welfare  of  our  two 
countries,  our  two  continents,  and,  indeed,  of  the  whole  world,  call 
for  the  compensation  of  Colombia  for  her  loss  or  the  arbitration  of 
her  claim,  and  I  feel  confident  that  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  will  be  glad  to  accede  to  one  or  the  other  of  these  honorable 
proposals,  now  that  all  question  of  casting  aspersions  upon  the  honor 
of  the  United  States  has  been  removed  from  this  correspondence. 

If  the  United  States  does  not  feel  called  upon  to  compensate 
Colombia  without  recourse  to  arbitration,  I  propose  that  the  ques- 
tions herein  stated  be  referred  to  an  impartial  court  of  arbitration 
constituted  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  the  treaty  of  The 
Hague,  adopted  by  the  United  States  and  by  25  other  nations  after 
most  careful  consideration.  But,  if  for  any  reason  the  United  States 
would  prefer  a  court  of  arbitration  constituted  in  any  other  way, 
Colombia  will  consent  to  any  me thod-  suggested  by  the  United  States 
Avhich  will  assure  the  selection  of  competent  and  impartial  arbi- 
trators to  determine  this  unhappy  contention. 

With  assurances  of  high  personal  regard  and  of  liveliest  hopes  for 
the  success  of  our  mutual  efforts  for  a  settlement  of  this  controversy 
which  will  be  honorable  to  all  parties,  I  beg  to  remain, 
Your  excellency's  obedient  servant, 

Diego  Mendoza. 


598  DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY   OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

American  Minister  at  Bogota  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

[Telegram.] 

Bogota,  May  26, 1906. 
The  President  of  .Colombia,  inviting  me  in  a  private  conference, 
submitted  the  following,  recognizing  impracticability  any  further 
discussion  of  arbitration  and  indemnity  over  the  Panama  question, 
and  desiring  to  take  practical  steps  to  settle  differences.  He  pro- 
poses    *     *     * 

[Here  follow  suggestions  which  are  still  the  subject  of  pending 
negotiations  and  no  part  of  which  has  any  relation  to  the  subject 
matter  of  the  Senate  resolution.] 


Secretary  of  State  to  the  American  Minister  at  Bogota. 

[Telegram.] 

Washington,  June  2, 1906. 
Say  to  President  Reyes  that  I  am  most  favorably  impressed  by 
his  proposals  and  shall  be  glad  to  undertake  negotiation  on  general 
lines  suggested  by  him.     *     *     * 


American  Minister,  at  Bogota  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

[Telegram.] 

Bogota,  June  7,  1906. 

The  President  of  Colombia  in  a  private  conference  says  the  fol- 
lowing : 

"  First,  he  is  much  pleased  with  your  answer  and  says,  that  now 
begins  a  new  era  in  friendly  relations. 

"  Second,  to-day  has  telegraphed  to  minister  of  Colombia  at  Wash- 
ington, '  return  at  once  ostensibly  on  leave  of  absence,  and  will  send, 
on  j'our  return,  a  new  minister  in  sympathy  with  proposed  negotia- 
tions.' " 


AmeHcan  Legation  at  Bogota  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

No.  1.]  American  Legation, 

Bogota,  20  August,  1906. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  inclose  herewith  printed  copy  of  a  circular 
dated  11  August,  1906,  informing  the  governors  of  the  departments 
about  a  resolution  passed  by  the  council  of  ministers  with  regard  to  a 
printed  letter  signed  by  the  Colombian  ex-minister  at  Washington, 
Sehor  Diego  Mendoza  Perez,  published  in  New  York  and  bearing  date 
of  2  July,  1906. 

According  to  this  resolution,  Seiior  Mendoza  Perez  has  been  de- 
clared traitor  to  his  country ;  and  by  Resolution  64  of  17  August,  1906, 


DIPLOMATIC   HISTOEY   OP   THE   PANAMA  CANAL.  599 

copy  of  which  I  also  inclose,  he  has  been  summoned  to  appear  before 
the  Colombian  Government  in  this  city  to  answer  the  charges  that 
have  caused  him  to  be  declared  traitor  to  the  country,  otherwise  his 
extradition  is  to  be  requested. 

Owing  to  pressure  of  time  I  am  unable  to  send  a  translation  of  these 
articles,  and  I  will  not  delay  them,  as  they  may  be  of  importance  to 
the  Department  of  State. 
I  have,  etc., 

Sam  B.  Koppel, 

In  charge. 


[Inclosure  1. — Translation.] 

Urgent  Circular. 

War  Department, 

Bogota,  August  11,  1006. 
Governor  of 

Prefects  of  Cali,  Buga,  Cucuta,  Ocaiia,  Palmira,  Santander  (Cauca),  Velez, 
Sogaruoso,  Honda,  Magangue,  Riohacha,  Buenaventura,  Tumaco,  Pereira,  Gira- 
dot,  Mornpos,  Corozal,  Quibdo,  Marinilla,  Sonson,  Alcaldes  Puerto  Berio,  Ga- 
rnarra,  Calamar. 

I  ti'anscribe  the  following  declaration  of  the  cabinet  of  ministers,  unani- 
mously approved  in  full  meeting  August  10,  1906 : 

The' cabinet  of  ministers,  in  view  of  the  statement  which  His  Excellency  the 
President  of  the  Republic  has  just  presented  to  you  and  the  letter  printed 
in  New  York,  dated  July  2,  1906,  signed  by  the  ex-minister  of  Colombia  in  Wash- 
ington, Seiior  Diego  Mendoza  Perez,  and  considering  that  by  the  numerous 
documents  which  are  in  the  archives  of  the  presidency  of  the  Republic  these 
things  have  been  confirmed : 

1.  That  about  the  middle  of  last  year  the  head  of  the  Government  had  com- 
plete knowledge  through  repeated  warnings  that  he  was  to  be  assassinated,  a 
design  which  he  had  reason  to  believe  was  conceived  by  individuals  whose 
interests  were  being  injured  by  the  Government  actively  following  up  the 
falsification  of  notes,  the  smuggling  of  emeralds,  licentious  acts,  and  other  deeds 
highly  prejudicial  to  public  morality  and  social  order,  about  all  which  His 
Excellency  the  President  opportunely  made  a  private  report  to  the  judges  of 
the  supreme  court  of  justice  and  to  the  attorney  general  of  (he  nation. 

2.  That  these  treasonable  designs  continued  to  develop  in  the  succeeding 
months  up  to  the  19th  of  December  of  last  year,  when  the  Government,  by 
means  of  the  judicious  vigilance  which  it  had  exercised,  was  able  to  break 
up  with  rapidity  and  without  disturbance  the  conspiracy  which  was  being 
hatched  to  overthrow  it. 

3.  That  after  the  frustration  of  that  crime  the  assassination  of  the  President 
was  again  insisted  on,  and  this  was  carried  so  far  that  a  band  of  malefactors 
was  organized  to  carry  it  out,  as  it  did  on  February  10  of  the  present  year, 
an  attempt  which  put  in  imminent  danger  the  life  of  His  Excellency  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  Republic  and  that  of  his  daughter. 

4.  That  after  the  conspirators  and  the  authors  of  the  homicidal  offense  had 
been  delivered  to  justice  and  punished  for  their  respective  crimes  in  conformity 
with  the  sentences  pronounced  by  competent  courts,  tranquillity  was  restored 
and  the  Government  continued  to  occupy  itself  actively  with  the  economic  and 
political  fiscal  reconstruction  of  the  country,  destroyed  and  discredited  by  the 
three  years'  war  just  over. 

f>.  That  things  being  in  this  condition,  the  Government  had  certain  informa- 
tion that  two  or  three  disloyal  sons  of  Colombia,  without  considering  the 
opinion  of  the  people,  were  trying  to  start  a  separatist  movement,  like  that  of 
Panama,  which,  if  successful,  would  involve  the  total  dissolution  of  Colombia, 
for  which  the  traitors  were  soliciting  the  support  of  some  foreign  power  and 
of  Panama.  In  order  to  avert  such  great  evils  the  Government  took  excessive 
measures  involving  energy  and  prudence  both  within  and  without  the  country, 
and  succeeded  in   averting  the  very  great  danger   which   was   threatening  it, 


600  DIPLOMATIC    HISTORY    OF    THE    PANAMA    CANAL. 

without  neglecting  internal  matters  of  vital  importance  for  the  development  of 
tlie  nation.  To-day  that  grave  clanger  has  entirely  disappeared,  owing  to  the 
attitude  which  the  Government  of  the  United  Slates  has  assumed. 

(5.  That  the  settlement  of  the  questions  pending  with  the  United  States  and 
Panama  being  urgent,  in  order  to  avoid  greater  ills,  the  Government  decided 
to  send  a  special  mission  to  the  American  Government  to  negotiate  it,  and 
which,  al  I  he  same  time  that  it  saved  the  national  honor,  omitting  pecuniary 
profits,  would  put  an  end  to  the  difficulties  of  the  country,  and  especially  of 
those  districts  on  the  coast  of  the  Atlantic  and  the  Pacific  which  had  arisen 
from  the  separation  of  Panama.  That  mission  was  faithfully  confided  to  the 
citizen  who  was  retiring  as  minister  for  foreign  affairs,  Don  Enrique  Cortes, 
who  found  him'self  obliged  to  resign  his  post,  and  to  Sefior  Diego  Mendoza 
Perez,  in  whose  loyalty  and  enlightenment  the  President  of  the  Republic  trusted. 

7.  That  the  Government  having  had  certain  information  that  its  representa- 
tive in  Washington,  Sefior  Mendoza  Perez,  through  lack  of  .judgment  and  dis- 
cretion, was  not  carrying  out  the  instructions  received,  decided  to  recall  him 
to  this  capital,  and  again  to  entrust  Sefior  Cortes  with  the  diplomatic  negotia- 
tions, being  convinced  of  his  learning  and  efficiency,  who  accepted  that  mission. 

8.  That  this  proceeding,  adopted  by  the  Government  according  to  the  right 
given  by  the  laws  and  in  the  endeavor  to  avert  the  great  ills  which  were  threat- 
ening the  country,  led  Dr.  Diego  Mendoza  Perez,  instead  of  conforming  to  the 
instructions  which  had  been  given  him  by  the  minister  for  foreign  affairs  to 
return  to  this  city,  as  he  was  ordered,  to  abuse  his  diplomatic  character  by 
making  public  in  a  foreign  country  and  with  injury  to  the  interests  of  Colombia, 
acts,  by  their  nature  confidential  in  accordance  with  the  practice  of  public  inter- 
national law,  and  slanderous  charges. 

9.  That  in  accordance  with  ordinal  4  of  article  20  of  the  Colombian  penal  code 
''diplomatic  agents  of  Colombia  who  commit  any  crime  in  a  foreign  country, 
and  any  other  employees  of  the  Government  in  a  foreign  country  who  commit 
any  act  of  disobedience  or  disloyalty  to  the  same  Government,  or  any  crime 
during  the  exercise  of  their  functions,  shall  be  punished  according  to  this  code. 

10.  That  in  accordance  with  article  359  of  the  said  code,  acts,  counsels,  or 
machinations  contributing  to  cause  any  injury  to  the  nation  shall  be  qualified 
as  treason  to  the  country. 

11.  That  in  the  publication  previously  mentioned,  which  has  circulated  widely 
throughout  the  country,  not  only  is  rebellion  instigated,  but  even  the  assassina- 
tion of  the  President  of  the  Republic. 

The  cabinet  of  ministers  declares  that  in  its  opinion  Sefior  Diego  Mendoza 
Perez,  ex-diplomatic  minister  of  Colombia  in  the  United  States,  by  making  the 
publication  as  a  letter  of  what  has  before  been  mentioned,  has  been  included 
in  the  denomination  of  traitor  to  the  country,  described  by  article  159  of  the 
penal  code. 

That  in  its  opinion  both  Sefior  Diego  Mendoza  and  the  other  persons  who 
appear  answerable  as  accomplices  in  the  grave  crime  which  has  been  committed 
are  punishable  in  accordance  with  ordinal  4  of  article  20  of  the  penal  code. 

That  ex-Minister  Sefior  Mendoza  has  expressly  violated  sentence  11  of  article 
8  of  law  23  of  I860,  which  says  literally:  "To  preserve  secrecy  in  negotiations 
and  to  publish  nothing  without  the  authorization  of  the  Government;"  and 
article  13  of  decree  1039  of  1901.  by  which  the  diplomatic  service  of  Colombia 
is  regulated,  which  binds  diplomatic  agents,  even  after  they  have  retired  from 
a  post,  not  to  publish,  nor  to  permit  the  publication,  of  anything  without  the 
previous  authorization  of  Use  Government,  under  which  Sefior  Mendoza  Perez 
was  found  answerable  through  the  gravity  of  the  oath  which  he  took  on  taking 
possession  of  his  office. 

That  consequently  the  Government,  in  accordance  with  the  laws,  orders  that 
those  who  are  found  to  be  responsible  for  the  crime  mentioned — viz.  treason  to 
the  country — shall  he  brought  to  justice,  for  which  it  shall  be  reported  to  the 
competent  authority  in  order  to  further  the  matter. 

The  President,  R.  Reyes. 

Minister  of  the  interior,  Dionisio  Arango;  minister  of  foreign  affairs.  A  Vas- 
quez  Cobo;  minister  of  the  treasury.  Tobias  Valenzuela  ;  minister  of  war,  Man- 
uel M.  Sanclemente;  minister  of  public  instruction,  J.  M.  Rivas  Groot;  minister 
of  public  works,  F.  de  P.  Manotas. 

Secretary  of  the  cabinet,  Camilo  Torres  Elicechea. 


DIPLOMATIC    HISTOKY    OF    THE    PANAMA   CANAL.  601 

As  the  publication  of  Senor  Mendoza  Perez,  which  the  declaration  of  the 
cabinet  of  ministers  discusses,  is  subversive  of  order,  and  as  the  cabinet  de- 
cided that  the  laws  on  public  order  shall  be  applied  to  the  accomplices  of  Sefior 
Mendoza  Perez,  you  will  ascertain  if  there  are  any  accomplices  in  that  locality 
who  have  received  the  publication  mentioned  and  who  are  distributing  it. 

The  whole  country  is  perfectly  calm,  and  in  order  to  give  greater  stability 
to  the  peacefulness  it  is  necessary  to  be  extremely  zealous  in  avoiding  and  sup- 
pressing everything  which  might  disturb  it. 

The  minister  of  war,  Sanclemente. 

[Inclosure  2. — Translation.] 

[Resolution  No.   64.] 

Republic  of  Colombia — War  Depabtment. 

The  minister  of  war,  in  compliance  with  the  laws  on  police  and  preservation 
of  public  order,  and  considering — 

1.  That  the  Government,  in  accordance  with  the  declaration  of  the  cabinet 
of  ministers  of  the  10th  instant,  referring  to  Selior  Diego  Mendoza  Perez,  ex- 
minister  of  Colombia  at  Washington,  has  ordered  that  a  case  of  treason  to  the 
country  be  brought  against  that  individual,  and  that  he  be  summoned  to  volun- 
tarily present  himself  to  answer  the  charges  made  against  him,  or  to  request  his 
extradition  if  he  should  refuse  to  obey  the  call  which  is  to  be  made. 

2.  That  they  have  proofs  that  the  agents  and  accomplices  of  Sefior  Diego  Men- 
doza Perez  have  reproduced  in  the  press  of  a  foreign  country  the  letter  of  this 
gentleman  which  is  the  cause  of  the  present  resolution,  adding  comments  to  it 
which  dishonor  the  country. 

3.  That  in  this  city  slanderous  anonymous  letters  are  sent  to  peaceful  and 
honest  citizens  and  to  public  employees  in  which  they  are  threatened  with 
death,  and  although  the  authors  of  such  anonymous  letters  are  professional 
agitators  and  slanderers,  insignificant  in  number  and  without  any  social  or 
political  standing,  it  is  necessary  to  prevent  their  continuing  to  disturb  society. 

4.  That  the  governors  of  the  departments  must  prevent  the  slanderers  and 
agitators  by  all  the  means  in  their  power  from  doing  the  mischief  in  the  terri- 
tory of  their  respective  jurisdictions  which  they  propose  to  do  in  this  capital, 
spreading  the  story  that  they  have  supporters  in  their  campaign  of  defamation 
and  threats  against  the  life  and  honor  of  the  citizens  and  public  employees,  and 
which  may  produce  civil  war. 

5.  That  peace  and  tranquillity  existing,  as  they  do  exist,  in  the  whole  Republic, 
with  the  exception  of  a  few  persons  only  in  this  capital  who  are  trying  to  keep 
its  inhabitants  agitated  and  alarmed,  it  is  indispensable  that  this  unpatriotic 
work  be  prevented  from  continuing  and  the  evil  from  extending  beyond  the 
capital. 

It  is  resolved: 

1.  To  summon  Senor  Diego  Mendoza  Perez,  ex-minister  of  Colombia  in  Wash- 
ington, to  appear  before  the  Government  in  this  city  to  answer  to  the  charges 
which  have  been  made,  by  which  he  is  declared  a  traitor  to  the  country,  it  be- 
ing understood  that  if  he  does  not  voluntarily  present  himself  within  a  period 
of  sixty  days  his  extradition  shall  be  requested  through  the  department  of  for- 
eign affairs. 

2.  To  solicit  the  attorney  general  of  the  nation  to  indict  Senor  Diego  Mendoza 
Perez  for  treason  to  the  country  through  the  judicial  division  of  the  national 
police,  taking  the  depositions  of  those  persons  who  appear  to  be  accomplices  of 
Mendoza  Perez  or  his  agents  for  developing  the  destructive  design  advised  in  his 
letter  of  July  2  of  the  present  year,  published  in  New  York,  which  has  been 
extensively  distributed  in  Colombia  and  the  other  Spanish-American  countries. 
The  indictment  shall  be  prepared  under  the  supervision  of  the  attorney  general 
of  the  nation,  and  when  found  it  shall  be  decided  what  court  shall  try  Senor 
Mendoza  Perez  and  his  accomplices. 

8.  To  specially  charge  the  governor  of  the  capital  district  and  those  of  the 
departments,  the  chief  of  the  garrison  at  Bogota,  the  gendarmerie,  and  the 
national   police: 

(a)  To  ascertain  through  their  subordinate  agents  who  the  few  persons  are 
that  are  occupied  in  directing  the  anonymous  circulars  mentioned  and  in  keep- 
ing the  city  disturbed,  and  who  are  the  accomplices  of  Senor  Diego  Mendoza 


602  DIPLOMATIC   HISTORY    OF   THE   PANAMA   CANAL. 

Perez  or  his  agents  in  the  furtherance  of  the  anarchistic  and  destructive  design 
counseled  by  him  in  his  letter  before  mentioned.  To  this  end  the  governor  of 
the  capital  district  shall  specially  make  use  of  the  alcaldes  of  the  barrio 
(wards). 

(&)  That  on  the  discovery  of  the  person  or  persons  previously  referred  to, 
notice  shall  immediately  be  sent  to  the  war  department  in  order  to  try  them  ac- 
cording to  the  law  of  the  high  national  police,  and  to  confine  them  at  a  military 
post  where  they  shall  be  educated,  by  means  of  work,  in  the  cause  of  peace  and 
order,  and  to  be  useful  both  to  themselves  and  to  society. 

4.  To  charge  the  governors  to  proceed  with  great  zeal  and  energy  to  carry  out 
this  resolution,  and  in  case  it  is  abused  owing  to  personal  grudges,  the  decree 
referring  to  those  who  make  accusations  falsely  or  through  anger  shall  be 
applied  to  the  responsible  parties. 

5.  To  charge  Colombian  ministers  and  consuls  abroad  to  ascertain  who  the 
accomplices  or  agents  of  Senor  Mendoza  Perez  are,  and  to  immediately  advise 
this  department  what  they  may  learn  in  this  connection. 

6.  To  rouse  all  citizens,  and  especially  public  employees,  in  order  that  they 
shall  aid  the  police  and  the  national  gendarmes  to  carry  out  this  resolution, 
whose  principal  object  is  to  protect  the  honor  and  the  tranquillity  of  the  citizens 
and  to  finally  put  an  end  to  false  alarms,  professional  agitators  and  slanderers, 
and  also  to  those  who  make  accusations  falsely  or  through  anger.  All  public 
employees  must  be  reminded  that  although  they  do  not  belong  to  the  police,  the 
gendarmes,  or  the  army,  their  duty  is  to  aid  them  to  preserve  order  as  well  as 
to  make  known  to  their  superiors  whether  there  is  in  the  public  administration 
any  incorrect  act  to  be  corrected. 

Let  it  be  published  on  posters  and  communicated  by  telegraph  to  the  gover- 
nors, in  order  that  they  may  make  it  known  to  all  inhabitants  of  the  department 
under  their  control. 

Issued  at  Bogota,  August  1G,  1906. 

The  minister  of  war. 

Manuel  M.  Sanclemente. 

o 


341.273 
U  srzzct 


STORAGE 


Diplomat  history g the  Panama  Ca  Main 
341.273  U582d 


3  lata  oaao3  n&m 


LAD 


. 


